[PATCH] winejoystick.drv: Revert 62876f3fc5feb1ca23d27a6de5adca580d963d0c

[Matteo Bruni]

2016-09-05 19:20 GMT+02:00 Sebastian Lackner <sebastian at fds-team.de>:
> 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).

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.