Hi Benjamin,
On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 09:36:08AM +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> On Jun 30 2024, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > Input core expects input handlers to be either filters, or regular
> > handlers, but not both. Additionally, for regular handlers it does
> > not make sense to define both single event method and batch method.
> >
> > Refuse registering handler if it defines more than one method.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/input/input.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/input/input.c b/drivers/input/input.c
> > index fd4997ba263c..8434348faeac 100644
> > --- a/drivers/input/input.c
> > +++ b/drivers/input/input.c
> > @@ -2517,6 +2517,26 @@ void input_unregister_device(struct input_dev *dev)
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(input_unregister_device);
> >
> > +static int input_handler_check_methods(const struct input_handler *handler)
> > +{
> > + int count = 0;
> > +
> > + if (handler->filter)
> > + count++;
> > + if (handler->events)
> > + count++;
> > + if (handler->event)
> > + count++;
> > +
> > + if (count != 1) {
>
> Am I missing some upstream commit? I have the following:
Thank you for the thorough review!
>
> in drivers/input/evdev.c:
>
> static struct input_handler evdev_handler = {
> .event = evdev_event,
> .events = evdev_events,
> .connect = evdev_connect,
> .disconnect = evdev_disconnect,
> .legacy_minors = true,
> .minor = EVDEV_MINOR_BASE,
> .name = "evdev",
> .id_table = evdev_ids,
> };
>
> So here count should be 2 and evdev would be rejected?
Uh, it looks like I had a patch buried that removed evdev_event as not
needed - if a handler has ->events() then input core would favor it even
before my patches.
>
> And in drivers/tty/serial/kgdboc.c:
>
> static struct input_handler kgdboc_reset_handler = {
> .connect = kgdboc_reset_connect,
> .disconnect = kgdboc_reset_disconnect,
> .name = "kgdboc_reset",
> .id_table = kgdboc_reset_ids,
> };
>
> here count would be 0 and kgdboc would also be rejected.
Yes, you are totally right. It looks like we need to allow the "no methods"
case.
>
> I agree on the intent of the patch, but these couple of input handlers
> should be fixed if they are not already.
Yep, I will address your other comments and resend in a few.
Thanks again!
--
Dmitry
