Re: usr1-signal, usr2-signal, etc.

[Kim F. Storm]

YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu <address@hidden> writes:

>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:47:09 +0100, address@hidden (Kim F. Storm) said:
>
>> What if the signal handlers just increment a global counter (one for
>> each signal type), and the main loop in keyboard.c checked those
>> counters and added the pending signal events in the "safe context"?
>
> There're two problems I can think of with this approach.

You are absolutely right about those problems, but they both existed
before.  In both cases, they only mean a delay in delivering the
signal event, which already was a problem in the original code.

The problem I would like to solve before the release is that of
a SIGUSRx potentially messing up the keyboard event queue.

Using a global flag or counter could solve that.

> In principle, both of them can be solved by converting signal delivery
> to data delivery on a pipe or a UNIX domain socket as in [1].  But
> this will require not-so-small changes, and I fear this becomes
> another sit-for case.
>
> Is it possible to postpone this feature to after the release?

Yes, we should just solve the event mixup, not the delay.

Can you work on that, please?

-- 
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk