Mir

Merge lp://qastaging/~mir-team/mir/port-input-dispatcher-to-input-sender-take-2 into lp://qastaging/mir

Proposed by Robert Carr
Status: Work in progress
Proposed branch: lp://qastaging/~mir-team/mir/port-input-dispatcher-to-input-sender-take-2
Merge into: lp://qastaging/mir
Diff against target: 23 lines (+1/-3)
1 file modified
src/server/input/android/input_sender.cpp (+1/-3)
To merge this branch: bzr merge lp://qastaging/~mir-team/mir/port-input-dispatcher-to-input-sender-take-2
Reviewer Review Type Date Requested Status
PS Jenkins bot (community) continuous-integration Needs Fixing
Alexandros Frantzis Pending
Alan Griffiths Pending
Andreas Pokorny Pending
Kevin DuBois Pending
Daniel van Vugt Pending
Review via email: mp+255026@code.qastaging.launchpad.net

This proposal supersedes a proposal from 2015-03-16.

Description of the change

Port the InputDispatcher to use the InputSender. This enables use of Surface::consume concurrently with droidinput::InputDispatcher (as things stand InputDispatcher would become confused by seq ids).

Dispatcher becomes the InputSendObserver (in order to receive finished signals, etc...the most hairy part of this diff) and accesses the input sender through new methods on droidinput::WindowHandle

To post a comment you must log in.
Revision history for this message
PS Jenkins bot (ps-jenkins) wrote : Posted in a previous version of this proposal
review: Needs Fixing (continuous-integration)
Revision history for this message
PS Jenkins bot (ps-jenkins) wrote : Posted in a previous version of this proposal
review: Approve (continuous-integration)
Revision history for this message
Andreas Pokorny (andreas-pokorny) wrote : Posted in a previous version of this proposal

Thanks for boy scouting my typos @1093

+698 stray n

will have another run over it in a bit..

Revision history for this message
Andreas Pokorny (andreas-pokorny) wrote : Posted in a previous version of this proposal

ok looks good apart from the stray n.

review: Approve
Revision history for this message
Kevin DuBois (kdub) wrote : Posted in a previous version of this proposal

okay, few other strays
428 +
1059 +
1287 +
1328 +

review: Approve
Revision history for this message
Robert Carr (robertcarr) wrote : Posted in a previous version of this proposal

Strays cleaned up.

Revision history for this message
Robert Carr (robertcarr) wrote : Posted in a previous version of this proposal

Thanks :)

Revision history for this message
PS Jenkins bot (ps-jenkins) wrote : Posted in a previous version of this proposal
review: Needs Fixing (continuous-integration)
Revision history for this message
PS Jenkins bot (ps-jenkins) wrote : Posted in a previous version of this proposal
review: Needs Fixing (continuous-integration)
Revision history for this message
Alexandros Frantzis (afrantzis) wrote : Posted in a previous version of this proposal

OK (besides the CI failures, of course).

Nits:

169 + { // acquire lock
170 + AutoMutex _l(mLock);

193 + { // acquire lock
194 + AutoMutex _l(mLock);

The locking scheme would be more clear if the code was indented.

146 +void InputDispatcher::handleEventSendStatusLocked(uint32_t seq, sp<Connection> connection, bool success, bool handled, bool socket_dead)

Clearer with enums instead of bools, or even named variables at the call site (e.g. handleEventSendStatusLocked(..., failure, not_handled, socket_not_dead)).

review: Approve
Revision history for this message
PS Jenkins bot (ps-jenkins) wrote : Posted in a previous version of this proposal
review: Needs Fixing (continuous-integration)
Revision history for this message
PS Jenkins bot (ps-jenkins) wrote : Posted in a previous version of this proposal
review: Needs Fixing (continuous-integration)
Revision history for this message
PS Jenkins bot (ps-jenkins) wrote : Posted in a previous version of this proposal
review: Approve (continuous-integration)
Revision history for this message
PS Jenkins bot (ps-jenkins) wrote : Posted in a previous version of this proposal
review: Needs Fixing (continuous-integration)
Revision history for this message
Alan Griffiths (alan-griffiths) wrote : Posted in a previous version of this proposal

Looks like slow CI infrastructure - re-TAing

Revision history for this message
PS Jenkins bot (ps-jenkins) : Posted in a previous version of this proposal
review: Approve (continuous-integration)
Revision history for this message
Daniel van Vugt (vanvugt) wrote : Posted in a previous version of this proposal

Sorry, I had to revert the landing as a quick fix for bug 1436644. Please fix and resubmit.

review: Needs Resubmitting
Revision history for this message
Robert Carr (robertcarr) wrote : Posted in a previous version of this proposal

Thanks Daniel I think I've located the deadlock (I seem to have introduced it in some last minute cleanup lol...) now auditing though I've found (and perhaps fixed) a second rarer one (e.g. 1 per 5000 test case). More soon

Revision history for this message
PS Jenkins bot (ps-jenkins) wrote : Posted in a previous version of this proposal
review: Needs Fixing (continuous-integration)
Revision history for this message
Daniel van Vugt (vanvugt) wrote : Posted in a previous version of this proposal

You will probably need to resubmit under a different branch name. Bzr remembers merging it in the past so won't show any/much diff needs merging.

Revision history for this message
Alan Griffiths (alan-griffiths) wrote : Posted in a previous version of this proposal

> You will probably need to resubmit under a different branch name. Bzr
> remembers merging it in the past so won't show any/much diff needs merging.

Or merge lp:mir and revert the revert

review: Needs Fixing
Revision history for this message
PS Jenkins bot (ps-jenkins) wrote :
review: Needs Fixing (continuous-integration)
2394. By Robert Carr

Merge trunk

Revision history for this message
PS Jenkins bot (ps-jenkins) wrote :
review: Needs Fixing (continuous-integration)

Unmerged revisions

2394. By Robert Carr

Merge trunk

2393. By Robert Carr

Typo

2392. By Robert Carr

Only enqueue entry in transfer ctopr to avoid re subscribing to dieing transfers

Preview Diff

[H/L] Next/Prev Comment, [J/K] Next/Prev File, [N/P] Next/Prev Hunk
The diff is not available at this time. You can reload the page or download it.

Subscribers

People subscribed via source and target branches