Comment 61 for bug 28052
Revision history for this message
|
|
#61 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
73416ba
(Get the code!)
Created an attachment (id=13771)
patch for Xserver
I'm sorry!
I accidentally uploaded an old development snapshot of the Xserver patch. I meant this one :) Sorry for wasting your time with this!
> I'd be better if DEVICE_PTRACCEL only takes up one spot and then you have a
sub-variable for the scheme in the struct.
> The range from DEVICE_PTRACCEL to DEVICE_PTRACCEL_MAX is a bit messy.
Agreed. It was like this in the first place. I changed the design in order to support getting parameters (GetDeviceControl doesn't upload a struct to the server) plus keeping the possibility to get/set (rather) arbitrary parameters.
I thought it to be better than a loaded struct from which something will always be missing, especially if someone draws up additional schemes or the algorithm gets new tweaks. Maybe there is another way to do it?