On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>
> I agree that these are 2 different events. My argument is that
> "VOLUME_UP_NOTIFY" event is similar to "BATTERY_OUT_NOTIFY",
> "DOCK_UNDOCK_NOTIFY", etc, etc and should be sent not through input
> layer but through a generic (yet to be designed) notification
> mechanism. Something lighter than input. Something like uevents over
> netlink.
Well, I'd argue that:
- it's going to be the same entity that cares in both cases (ie anybody
who is ready to accept VOLUME_UP keypresses is also the exact same
party that also wants to know if VOLUME_UP happened *independently*)
Ergo: making it a separate "generic" notification is actually totally
counterproductive, because it just adds complexity.
- it really is a keypress. Yes, it's a keypress with side effects, but
it still tends to have a distinct source, and as such it is interesting
*as* a keypress.
IOW: it should have all the same "incidental" side effects as any other
keypress. Example: I think it's reasonable to consider it an event as
far as the screen saver is concerned. In other words, it's not *just* a
"volume was raised" event. It's a "volume was raised, and the user
actually pressed a key to do so".
So I do think they are keypresses, although I also suspect that like many
other magical keys, the "NOTIFY" version is often also totally hidden by
hardware/firmware interactions (ie I'm pretty sure that many of those
special keys will never be visible at all to the OS, because the firmware
hides the fact that they were pressed entirely!)
Linus
-
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]
