On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 06:09:45AM +1000, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:48 AM, Dmitry Torokhov > <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > We should be able to handle the case where scancode is valid even though > > it might be unmapped yet. This is regardless of what version of > > EVIOCGKEYCODE we use, 1 or 2, and whether it is sparse keymap or not. > > > > Is it possible to validate the scancode by driver? > > More appropriately, why not just revert the thing? The version change Well, then we'll break Ubuntu again as they recompiled their input-utils package (without fixing the check). And the rest of distros do not seem to be using that package... > and the buggy EINVAL return both. I believe that -EINVAL thing only affects RC devices that Mauro switched to the new rc-core; input core in itself should be ABI compatible. Thus I'll leave the decision to him whether he wants to revert or fix compatibility issue. > > As Mark said, breaking user space simply isn't acceptable. And since > breaking user space isn't acceptable, then incrementing the version is > stupid too. It might not have been the best idea to increment, however I maintain that if there exists version is can be changed. Otherwise there is no point in having version at all. As I said, reverting the version bump will cause yet another wave of breakages so I propose leaving version as is. > > The way we add new ioctl's is not by incrementing some "ABI version" > crap. It's by adding new ioctl's or system calls or whatever that > simply used to return -ENOSYS or other error before, while preserving > the old ABI. That way old binaries don't break (for _ANY_ reason), and > new binaries can see "oh, this doesn't support the new thing". That has been done as well; we have 2 new ioctls and kept 2 old ioctls. -- Dmitry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
