[PATCH] winejoystick.drv: Revert 62876f3fc5feb1ca23d27a6de5adca580d963d0c

[Sebastian Lackner]

On 05.09.2016 18:28, Bruno Jesus wrote:
> On Monday, September 5, 2016, Sebastian Lackner <sebastian at 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 at 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). Also, I would like to point out
that HID support is still a very long way to go. The work on the ntoskrnl /
driver side is just the first step and has not even really started yet. At
least I can not give any estimation how long it will take, so fixing bugs in
the "old" code still makes sense imho.