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>
A little bit of code simplification by using static initialization
of struct right at the point of declaration. Also dropping a few now
unneccessary zero assignments.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Coherently moving all reply struct decls and assignments into static
initialization right at declaration, just before it is getting byte-
swapped and sent out. Zero-assignments can be dropped here, since the
compiler automatically initializes all other fields to zero.
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 part moves the request payload structs (or pointers to them) into the
per-version branches. Within each branch following our usual scheme for
extension request handlers (eg. using the REQUEST*() macros and having a
pointer named `stuff` to the current request struct)
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 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>
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>
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.
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 authorative source of the request frame size is client->req_len,
especially with big requests larger than 2^18 bytes.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The authorative source of the request frame size is client->req_len,
especially with big requests larger than 2^18 bytes.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The authorative source of the request frame size is client->req_len,
especially with big requests larger than 2^18 bytes.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The authorative source of the request frame size is client->req_len,
especially with big requests larger than 2^18 bytes.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The authorative source of the request frame size is client->req_len,
especially with big requests larger than 2^18 bytes.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Most of the complexity here isn't needed at all. It can be really trivial,
since we just have one operation anyways.
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>
In order to allow simplifying the reply send path, collect the reply
fragments into one buffer, instead of arbitrary number of WriteToClient()
calls. This also makes it much easier for potentially new purely packet-based
transports which (eg. binder) that would need their own stream parsing logic.
This xres function is an exceptionally hard case, since payload is constructed
step by step, and it's size only known when finished. The current way of the
fragment handling still has lots of room for improvement (eg. using very small
number of allocations), but leaving this for later exercise.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Collect the few bits in a local array, so one WriteToClient() call is
sufficient. That's also easing further simplifications in upcoming commits.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Simplify allocaton by putting the small temporary int array onto stack.
This also allows further simplifications by upcoming commits.
The upper bound is determined by the number of resource types registered
in the server - this can only be increased by writing new extensions.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Collect the few bits in a local array, so one WriteToClient() call is
sufficient. That's also easing further simplifications in upcoming commits.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Simplify allocaton by putting the small temporary int array onto stack.
This also allows further simplifications by upcoming commits.
Note: there's an upper bound by compile time defines (theoretically, can
be increased by special cmdline args, that virtually nobody ever using).
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Simplify the dispatching by moving the branching between Xinerama
vs. single screen into the actual request handlers.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
When using static struct initialization, fields not explicitly
stated are automatically zero.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult