Bug 14732

Summary:

xorg/driver/xf86-input-elo2300 - Dont call non existent functions

Product:

xorg

Reporter:

Paulo César Pereira de Andrade <pcpa>

Component:

Input/elo2300

Assignee:

Xorg Project Team <xorg-team>

Status:

RESOLVED FIXED

QA Contact:

Xorg Project Team <xorg-team>

Severity:

normal

Priority:

medium

Keywords:

patch

Version:

git

Hardware:

Other

OS:

All

Whiteboard:

i915 platform:

i915 features:

Attachments:

Description	Flags
0001-Don-t-call-xf86AddLocalDevice-and-xf86XInputSetSendC.patch	none
0002-Don-t-call-xf86GetErrno-instead-use-errno-directly.patch	none
0001-Don-t-call-xf86GetErrno-instead-use-errno-directl.patch	none

Description Paulo César Pereira de Andrade 2008-02-28 21:43:16 UTC

Created attachment 14690 [details] [review]
0001-Don-t-call-xf86AddLocalDevice-and-xf86XInputSetSendC.patch

I posted this patch at xorg@ some time ago. Posting again
to avoid it being lost.

   Also a bit unsure about what would be the proper way to
check for xf86_ansic functions, as adding a macro for checking
the proper sdk header, and cut&pasting everywhere may not
be the better way, so it checks XORG_VERSION_CURRENT, but
that value has not yet been updated in git master...

Comment 1 Paulo César Pereira de Andrade 2008-02-28 21:43:41 UTC

Created attachment 14691 [details] [review]
0002-Don-t-call-xf86GetErrno-instead-use-errno-directly.patch

Comment 2 Peter Hutterer 2008-02-28 23:18:58 UTC

(In reply to comment #0)
> Created an attachment (id=14690) [details]
> 0001-Don-t-call-xf86AddLocalDevice-and-xf86XInputSetSendC.patch
> 
> I posted this patch at xorg@ some time ago. Posting again
> to avoid it being lost.
> 
>    Also a bit unsure about what would be the proper way to
> check for xf86_ansic functions, as adding a macro for checking
> the proper sdk header, and cut&pasting everywhere may not
> be the better way, so it checks XORG_VERSION_CURRENT, but
> that value has not yet been updated in git master...
> 

this one was pushed as e807e5a88af379cad14331b787ed32a45553f8f3 on Jan 30.

(In reply to comment #1)
> Created an attachment (id=14691) [details]
> 0002-Don-t-call-xf86GetErrno-instead-use-errno-directly.patch

I'm not sure about the whole 
XORG_VERSION_CURRENT > (((1) * 10000000) + ((4) * 100000) + ((99) * 1000) + 2). 

Isn't there a saner macro around?

Comment 3 Julien Cristau 2008-02-29 14:21:30 UTC

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 23:18:59 -0800, bugzilla-daemon@freedesktop.org wrote:

> --- Comment #2 from Peter Hutterer <peter@cs.unisa.edu.au>  2008-02-28 23:18:58 PST ---
> I'm not sure about the whole 
> XORG_VERSION_CURRENT > (((1) * 10000000) + ((4) * 100000) + ((99) * 1000) + 2). 
> 
> Isn't there a saner macro around?
> 
XORG_VERSION_CURRENT > XORG_VERSION_NUMERIC(1,4,99,2,0)

Comment 4 Paulo César Pereira de Andrade 2008-04-04 22:35:26 UTC

Created attachment 15693 [details] [review]
0001-Don-t-call-xf86GetErrno-instead-use-errno-directl.patch

  I think it would be better to just not check
for Xorg version, as it is what is done everywhere
else, and this patch should also work with very
releases, at least as far as the dlloader is used.

Comment 5 Peter Hutterer 2008-04-07 23:41:22 UTC

(In reply to comment #4)
> Created an attachment (id=15693) [details]
> 0001-Don-t-call-xf86GetErrno-instead-use-errno-directl.patch
> 
>   I think it would be better to just not check
> for Xorg version, as it is what is done everywhere
> else, and this patch should also work with very
> releases, at least as far as the dlloader is used.
> 

pushed, thanks.

Comment 6 Peter Hutterer 2008-04-14 23:06:35 UTC

I think the last push closed this bug.

Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.