2016-09-05 19:20 GMT+02:00 Sebastian Lackner sebastian@fds-team.de:
On 05.09.2016 18:28, Bruno Jesus wrote:
On Monday, September 5, 2016, Sebastian Lackner sebastian@fds-team.de wrote:
On 03.09.2016 22:21, Bruno Jesus wrote:
Copy & paste fail on the commit ID in previous email, sorry.
With Aric's intensive steps into commiting HID code it is simpler to
revert this patch (which caused a regression) instead of trying alterantive ways to fix it. Specially because HID will change this whole file anyway.
Superseeds 126184.
Fixes https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41217
Signed-off-by: Bruno Jesus <00cpxxx@gmail.com javascript:;>
dlls/winejoystick.drv/joystick_linux.c | 35
++++++++--------------------------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
I am not sure if it makes much sense to revert your improvements, just because of the ongoing HID work. When I understand the problem correctly, the performance issues can also be fixed without in a different way. I think your previous patch was already in the right direction, my only criticm was the use of malloc/free instead of WINAPI.
Hiho, nobody ever complained about a similar problem before, the patch was benefiting only myself and really the HID changes are going to erase all the code so it would be a "temporary change". Investing more time in the other patch is waste of time IMO.
If it was fixing a real bug for you, it most likely also affected other users (even if there is no bug report about it).
Yeah, reverting a fix because it introduces a regression when there is a potential clean fix for the regression itself doesn't seem like the right choice, ever.