Re: [PATCH] Input: Do not add SYN_REPORT in between a single packet data

[Aniroop Mathur]

Hello Mr. Torokhov / Mr. Henry,

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Aniroop Mathur
<aniroop.mathur@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello Mr. Torokhov,
>
> Could you kindly help to update about this patch?
>

So is this patch concluded? Are you applying it?

Thanks,
Aniroop Mathur

> Thank you,
> Aniroop Mathur
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:26 AM, Aniroop Mathur
> <aniroop.mathur@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi Henrik,
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:15 PM, Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Hi Dmitry,
>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/input/input.c b/drivers/input/input.c
>>>>> index 8806059..262ef77 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/input/input.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/input/input.c
>>>>> @@ -401,8 +401,7 @@ static void input_handle_event(struct input_dev *dev,
>>>>>                 if (dev->num_vals >= 2)
>>>>>                         input_pass_values(dev, dev->vals, dev->num_vals);
>>>>>                 dev->num_vals = 0;
>>>>> -       } else if (dev->num_vals >= dev->max_vals - 2) {
>>>>> -               dev->vals[dev->num_vals++] = input_value_sync;
>>>>> +       } else if (dev->num_vals >= dev->max_vals - 1) {
>>>>>                 input_pass_values(dev, dev->vals, dev->num_vals);
>>>>>                 dev->num_vals = 0;
>>>>>         }
>>>>
>>>> This makes sense to me. Henrik?
>>>
>>> I went through the commits that made these changes, and I cannot see any strong
>>> reason to keep it. However, this code path only triggers if no SYN events are
>>> seen, as in a driver that fails to emit them and consequently fills up the
>>> buffer. In other words, this change would only affect a device that is already,
>>> to some degree, broken.
>>>
>>> So, the question to Aniroop is: do you see this problem in practise, and in that
>>> case, for what driver?
>>>
>>
>> Nope. So far I have not dealt with any such driver.
>> I made this change because it is breaking protocol of SYN_REPORT event code.
>>
>> Further from the code, I could deduce that max_vals is just an estimation of
>> packet_size and it does not guarantee that packet_size is same as max_vals.
>> So real packet_size can be more than max_vals value and hence we could not
>> insert SYN_REPORT until packet ends really.
>> Further, if we consider that there exists a driver or will exist in future
>> which sets capability of x event code according to which max_value comes out to
>> y and the real packet size is z i.e. driver wants to send same event codes
>> again in the same packet, so input event reader would be expecting SYN_REPORT
>> after z events but due to current code SYN_REPORT will get inserted
>> automatically after y events, which is a wrong behaviour.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Aniroop Mathur
>>
>>> Henrik
>>>