Using the type "Bool", which is defined in Xdefs.h, therefore this
header should be include, so we don't need to rely on it being
included indirectly by somebody else.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
There's no use in redefining function names via preprocessor this
funny ways. Perhaps there once was back when that header used to
live outside the server tree, but that's decades ago.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The dispatcher functions are much more complex than they're usually are
(just switch/case statement). Bring them in line with the standard scheme
used in the Xserver, so further steps become easier.
It's also much cleaner to use the defines from proto headers instead of
raw numbers.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The current way of switching between Xinerama and single-screen handlers
is quite complicated and needs call vector tables that are changed on
the fly, which in turn makes dispatching more complicated.
Reworking this into a simple and straight code flow, where individual request
procs just look at a flag to decide whether to call the Xinerama or single
screen version.
This isn't just much easier to understand (and debug), but also removes the need
or the call vectors, thus allowing further simplification of the dispatcher.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Instead of trying to calloc() zero-size blocks when there's no actual payload
to send, skip the whole part. This also helps reducing analyzer noise.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
* use static initialization where possible
* put the lists into one one block, so they can be written in one pass
* simplify size computations
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The dispatcher functions are much more complex than they're usually are
(just switch/case statement). Bring them in line with the standard scheme
used in the Xserver, so further steps become easier.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Some test cases are recycling the ClientRec between swapped/unwapped runs.
Make sure the Client's swapped flag is always reset in those cases.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Make the code a bit easier to read by using initialization of the reply
structs, at the point of declaration. Most of them aren't written to later,
just passed into WriteReplyToClient(). Also dropping some useless zero
assignments (struct initializers automatically zero-out unmentioned fields).
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The dispatcher functions are much more complex than they're usually are
(just switch/case statement). Bring them in line with the standard scheme
used in the Xserver, so further steps become easier.
It's also much cleaner to use the defines from proto headers instead of
raw numbers.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Instead of dozens of little WriteToClient() calls, collect the sub-replies in
a buffer and send the whole reply out at once. This also allows more upcoming
simplifications in the send path.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
This function is a funny beast: it assembles and writes out an xkbGetGeometryReply,
called in two different cases, ProcXkbGetGeometry() as well as ProcXkbGetKbdByName().
In the latter case the whole reply is contained in another one. That's the reason
why it's payload size is computed separately - the caller must know that in order
to set up the container's reply size correctly.
As preparation for upcoming simplifications of the reply send path, splitting off
this function into pieces: XkbAssembleGeometry() just assembles the reply payload,
while it's callers now responsible for preparing the request header and writing
out both pieces.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
This function is a funny beast: it assembles and writes out an xkbGetIndicatorMapReply,
called in two different cases, ProcXkbGetIndicatorMap() as well as ProcXkbGetKbdByName().
In the latter case the whole reply is contained in another one. That's the reason
why it's payload size is computed separately - the caller must know that in order
to set up the container's reply size correctly.
As preparation for upcoming simplifications of the reply send path, splitting off
this function into pieces: XkbAssembleIndicatorMap() just assembles the reply payload,
while it's callers now responsible for preparing the request header and writing
out both pieces.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
This function is a funny beast: it assembles and writes out an xkbGetCompatMapReply,
called in two different cases, ProcXkbGetCompatMap() as well as ProcXkbGetKbdByName().
In the latter case the whole reply is contained in another one. That's the reason
why it's payload size is computed separately - the caller must know that in order
to set up the container's reply size correctly.
As preparation for upcoming simplifications of the reply send path, splitting off
this function into pieces: XkbAssembleCompatMap() just assembles the reply payload,
while it's callers now responsible for preparing the request header and writing
out both pieces.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
This function is a funny beast: it assembles and writes out an xkbGetMapReply,
called in two different cases, ProcXkbGetMap() as well as ProcXkbGetKbdByName().
In the latter case the whole reply is contained in another one. That's the reason
why it's payload size is computed separately - the caller must know that in order
to set up the container's reply size correctly.
As preparation for upcoming simplifications of the reply send path, splitting off
this function into pieces: XkbAssembleMap() just assembles the reply payload,
while it's callers now responsible for preparing the request header and writing
out both pieces.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
For easier reading, move th sub-reply structs down to where they're used
first and use static initialization for the common fields.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Move down the declaration of the reply struct, right before swapping and sending
and use static initialization.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The function doesn't need to pass anything back via this pointer, it's
the last consumer of this struct. Make understanding the code a bit easier
and clear the road for further simplifications by passing the struct as
value instead of pointer.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The function doesn't need to pass anything back via this pointer, it's
the last consumer of this struct. Make understanding the code a bit easier
and clear the road for further simplifications by passing the struct as
value instead of pointer.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Make the code flow a bit easier to understand and allow further simplification
by now just having to write out one additional payload as one block.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Putting both payload pieces into one buffer, so it can be written out
with only one call.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
It's hard to see which fields of the xkbGetDeviceInfoReply struct it's
reading or writing, and that complicates further simplifications of the
caller. So instead let the caller pass in the relevant fields and do the
modifications on the reply structs on its own.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
A bit simplification in code flow.
The extra length check (did we write as much as intended?) isn't necessary,
since the buffer size is computed by the very same data before this
function is called.
Hint: the size computation must be done before calling this one, because
the reply might be encapsulated in another one (xkbGetKbdByName).
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
It's not passing back any data via that pointer and actually the last
consumer of it. Changing it to value instead of pointer clears the
road for further simplifications by subsequent patches.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Make it a bit simpler and easier to read.
calloc() and WriteToClient() can handle zero lengths very well.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
It's not passing back any data via that pointer and actually the last
consumer of it. Changing it to value instead of pointer clears the
road for further simplifications by subsequent patches.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
It's not passing back any data via that pointer and actually the last
consumer of it. Changing it to value instead of pointer clears the
road for further simplifications by subsequent patches.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
We don't need the whole struct here, especially do we not wanna change it.
Therefore only pass in what's really needed, so it gets easier to understand.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
We don't need the whole struct here, especially do we not wanna change it.
Therefore only pass in what's really needed, so it gets easier to understand.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
We don't need the whole struct here, especially do we not wanna change it.
Therefore only pass in what's really needed, so it gets easier to understand.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
We don't need the whole struct here, especially do we not wanna change it.
Therefore only pass in what's really needed, so it gets easier to understand.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
We don't need the whole struct here, especially do we not wanna change it.
Therefore only pass in what's really needed, so it gets easier to understand.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
We don't need the whole struct here, especially do we not wanna change it.
Therefore only pass in what's really needed, so it gets easier to understand.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
We don't need the whole struct here, especially do we not wanna change it.
Therefore only pass in what's really needed, so it gets easier to understand.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Use static initializaton as much as possible and drop unnecessary
or duplicate zero assignments.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
This macro isn't used anywhere (also not in drivers), so no need
to keep it around any longer.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult