On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:54:53PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> 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.
>
BTW, another issue is that evdev's ioctl returns -EINVAL for unknown
ioctls so applications would have hard time figuring out whether error
returned because of kernel being too old or because they are trying to
retrieve/establish invalid mapping if they had to go only by the error
code.
As far as I can see EINVAL is a proper error for unknown ioctls:
[dtor@hammer work]$ man 2 ioctl | grep EINVAL
EINVAL Request or argp is not valid.
[dtor@hammer work]$
--
Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
