diff options
| author | Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> | 2010-06-29 10:43:51 +1000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> | 2010-07-01 14:04:58 +1000 |
| commit | dbf249ec6638f0a8dfa4c2286099845aafc8ac88 (patch) | |
| tree | 458d7b659cb2e6da7f911e25d390635cfe52a912 /xkb | |
| parent | 1884db430a5680e37e94726dff46686e2218d525 (diff) | |
xkb: remove now obsolete comment.
Looks like nothing broke from removing the hardcoded CoreProcessPointerEvent
call. Whoop. Di. Doo.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Diffstat (limited to 'xkb')
| -rw-r--r-- | xkb/xkbAccessX.c | 16 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 16 deletions
diff --git a/xkb/xkbAccessX.c b/xkb/xkbAccessX.c index b5486b73b..6d17c75b1 100644 --- a/xkb/xkbAccessX.c +++ b/xkb/xkbAccessX.c @@ -712,22 +712,6 @@ DeviceEvent *event = &ev->device_event; changed |= XkbPointerButtonMask; } - /* Guesswork. mostly. - * xkb actuall goes through some effort to transparently wrap the - * processInputProcs (see XkbSetExtension). But we all love fun, so the - * previous XKB implementation just hardcoded the CPPE call here instead - * of unwrapping like anybody with any sense of decency would do. - * I got no clue what the correct thing to do is, but my guess is that - * it's not hardcoding. I may be wrong. whatever it is, don't come whining - * to me. I just work here. - * - * Anyway. here's the old call, if you don't like the wrapping, revert it. - * - * CoreProcessPointerEvent(xE,mouse,count); - * - * see. it's still steaming. told you. (whot) - */ - UNWRAP_PROCESS_INPUT_PROC(mouse, xkbPrivPtr, backupproc); mouse->public.processInputProc(ev, mouse); COND_WRAP_PROCESS_INPUT_PROC(mouse, xkbPrivPtr, |