Some requests using different structs dependending on which protocol version
(v1 vs. v2) had been selected. That's is handled by coverting v1 structs into v2,
before proceeding with the actual handling.
The code flow of this is very complex and hard to understand. Cleaning this up
in several smaller steps, that are easier to digest.
This part is splitting the huge request handlers into upper and lower half,
where the upper is doing the version check and converting v1 requests into v2,
while the lower one is doing the actual request processing, operating on the
struct pointer passed in from the upper one, instead of the client struct's
request buffer.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Some requests using different structs dependending on which protocol version
(v1 vs. v2) had been selected. That's is handled by coverting v1 structs into v2,
before proceeding with the actual handling.
The code flow of this is very complex and hard to understand. Cleaning this up
in several smaller steps, that are easier to digest.
This moving the request size check into the if-version-X branches, to make it
some bit easier to undertand.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
These 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>
These code pieces have been commented out since their introduction back
almost two decades ago, so probably no need for them anymore.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need to have one function doing nothing more than calling another one
with the same prototype.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Instead of highjacking core request handlers, use the recently introduced
DDX/driver API.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
We don't have a standard protocol for enabling VRR yet, but some time ago an
ad-hoc had been made in the amdgpu driver (later also copied to modsetting),
which works by client setting the _VARIABLE_REFRESH window property.
The way it's currently done - driver is highjacking the X_ChangeProperty and
X_DeleteProperty request handlers - is pretty fragile, and is also a violation
of layers: drivers never should be twisted with core protocol details. (And in
the future, this should be done by some suitable extension).
Another problem is Xinerama: when it's enabled, this only works on the first
screen - the others won't ever see this signal, no matter on which one(s) the
Window is physically placed (for the wire protocol, all windows are on screen 0,
unless the client explicitly creates them on another one)
This commit adds a generic Screen proc for telling the DDX, whether the VRR mode
shall be changed (for now, it's only DISABLED and ENABLED). Drivers can hook into
here in order to receive this signal, w/o having to highjack any core request
handlers. Catching the property change is now entirely done in the DIX.
The (non-standard) status qou of (ab)using window properties is kept, but it's
now also easy to add a new signaling mechanism, in case a standard is agreed on.
Yet a quite naive implementation (eg. not acting on moving windows between screens),
but enough to fix the most pressing problems supporting extra screens in general,
as well as stopping the highjacking of core request handlers by drivers.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Instead of having the request handler ask for fd's one by one, just read them
all into a little array in ClientRec struct. And also automatically clean up
after request had been handled.
Request handlers need to set the entries to -1 if they shouldn't be closed
automatically.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
ProcRRGetScreenResources() vs. RRGetScreenResourcesCurrent() have different
semantics - this also must be followed in byte-swapped case.
Fixes: fc70839431 - Add server support for RRGetScreenResourcesCurrent
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
This file became pretty no-op, just including dix-config.h.
So we can remove it now and include dix-config.h directly.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Now that Xnest is taking care of disbling unsupported extensions itself,
no more need for the special hack in here. Including xnest-config.h also
isn't needed anymore.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Instead of strange #undef hacks in various places, just go the straight
route and set the corresponding no*Extension flags on server startup.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
This macro doesn't do anything more than just making the function declarations
a few bytes smaller, but this makes the code harder to read (eg. when just
grepping through the code base).
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Several SProc's have become no-ops, just calling the actual Proc's,
so we can get rid of them entirely.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Lots of SProc's have become no-ops, just calling the actual Proc's,
so we can get rid of them entirely.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Several SProc's have become no-ops, just calling the actual Proc's,
so we can get rid of them entirely.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Several SProc's have become no-ops, just calling the actual Proc's,
so we can get rid of them entirely.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Several SProc's have become no-ops, just calling the actual Proc's,
so we can get rid of them entirely.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Several SProc's have become no-ops, just calling the actual Proc's,
so we can get rid of them entirely.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Several SProc's have become no-ops, just calling the actual Proc's,
so we can get rid of them entirely.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Several SProc's have become no-ops, just calling the actual Proc's,
so we can get rid of them entirely.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Several SProc's have become no-ops, just calling the actual Proc's,
so we can get rid of them entirely.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Several SProc's have become no-ops, just calling the actual Proc's,
so we can get rid of them entirely.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Several SProc's have become no-ops, just calling the actual Proc's,
so we can get rid of them entirely.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Several SProc's have become no-ops, just calling the actual Proc's,
so we can get rid of them entirely.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Several SProc's have become no-ops, just calling the actual Proc's,
so we can get rid of them entirely.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Several SProc's have become no-ops, just calling the actual Proc's,
so we can get rid of them entirely.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The request struct's length fields aren't used anymore - we have the
client->req_len field instead, which also is bigreq-compatible.
Also dropping now obsolete SProcNoOperation().
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The request struct's length fields aren't used anymore - we have the
client->req_len field instead, which also is bigreq-compatible.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The request struct's length fields aren't used anymore - we have the
client->req_len field instead, which also is bigreq-compatible.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The request struct's length fields aren't used anymore - we have the
client->req_len field instead, which also is bigreq-compatible.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The request struct's length fields aren't used anymore - we have the
client->req_len field instead, which also is bigreq-compatible.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The request struct's length fields aren't used anymore - we have the
client->req_len field instead, which also is bigreq-compatible.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The request struct's length fields aren't used anymore - we have the
client->req_len field instead, which also is bigreq-compatible.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The request struct's length fields aren't used anymore - we have the
client->req_len field instead, which also is bigreq-compatible.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The request struct's length fields aren't used anymore - we have the
client->req_len field instead, which also is bigreq-compatible.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The request struct's length fields aren't used anymore - we have the
client->req_len field instead, which also is bigreq-compatible.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The request struct's length fields aren't used anymore - we have the
client->req_len field instead, which also is bigreq-compatible.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The request struct's length fields aren't used anymore - we have the
client->req_len field instead, which also is bigreq-compatible.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The request struct's length fields aren't used anymore - we have the
client->req_len field instead, which also is bigreq-compatible.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The request struct's length fields aren't used anymore - we have the
client->req_len field instead, which also is bigreq-compatible.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The request struct's length fields aren't used anymore - we have the
client->req_len field instead, which also is bigreq-compatible.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The request struct's length fields aren't used anymore - we have the
client->req_len field instead, which also is bigreq-compatible.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The request struct's length fields aren't used anymore - we have the
client->req_len field instead, which also is bigreq-compatible.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The request struct's length fields aren't used anymore - we have the
client->req_len field instead, which also is bigreq-compatible.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The request struct's length fields aren't used anymore - we have the
client->req_len field instead, which also is bigreq-compatible.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The request struct's length fields aren't used anymore - we have the
client->req_len field instead, which also is bigreq-compatible.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The request struct's length fields aren't used anymore - we have the
client->req_len field instead, which also is bigreq-compatible.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult