Paulo Marques <[email protected]> wrote:
> Roman Zippel wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> [...]
>>> What, actually, is the problem?
>>
>> It changes the behaviour, it will annoy the hell out of people like me who
>> have to deal with different kernels and expect this to just work. :-(
>> Since then has it been acceptable to just go ahead and break stuff? This
>> problem doesn't really look unsolvable, so why is my request to fix the
>> damn thing so unreasonable?
>
> Ok, what about this one?
>
> I don't have time to test it (it compiles, at least), but it seems the
> logic is pretty clear: once you have pressed both "Alt" and "SysRq"
> sysrq mode becomes active until you release *both* keys. In this mode
> any regular key press triggers handle_sysrq.
>
> This allows for all the combinations mentioned before in this thread and
> makes the logic simpler, IMHO.
Why don't you use a bitmask?
alt-sysrq down -> val = 0b11
sysrq up -> val &= ~0b01
alt up -> val &= ~0b10
test is_sysrq == !!val
--
Ich danke GMX dafür, die Verwendung meiner Adressen mittels per SPF
verbreiteten Lügen zu sabotieren.
http://david.woodhou.se/why-not-spf.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
