On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 11:22:10AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 09/07/2011 11:16 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 01:04:53AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >> On 07/08/2011 05:35 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > >>> > >>> Input only need to do this compat stuff on read/write paths so maybe if > >>> you add plumbing similar to compat_ioctl we could switch owver to it. > >>> > >> > >> The problem is that read/write ties into a large number of system calls, > >> and input is the *only* subsystem which needs it. > >> > > > > BTW, while listening to x32 resentation on LPC I realized that the need > > for compat tests on read/write paths in input subsystem is due to use of > > timeval in input_event structures. If x32 solved the time_t issue by > > moving to 64 bit times then input read/write should simply use native > > 64 bit operations. > > > > That still leaves sysfs and proc business of course... > > > > I thought there were pointers, (or longs) there too. > > In fact, we might have had the worst of both worlds here... > The pointers are in ioctl paths (upload of force-feedback effects with custom waveforms - noone actually uses them in real life). -- 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
