On 11-01-26 02:50 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 02:47:18PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote: >> On 11-01-26 02:41 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>> >>> I do not consider lsinput refusing to work a regression. >> >> Obviously, since you don't use that tool. >> Those of us who do use it see this as broken userspace compatibility. >> >> Who the hell reviews this crap, anyway? >> Code like that should never have made it upstream in the first place. >> > > You are more than welcome spend more time on reviews. Somehow I detect a totally lack of sincerity there. But thanks for fixing the worst of this regression, at least. Perhaps you might think about eventually fixing the bad use of -EINVAL in future revisions. One way perhaps to approach that, would be to begin fixing it internally, but still returning the same things from the actual f_ops->ioctl() routine. Then eventually provide new ioctl numbers which return the correct -ENOTTY (or whatever is best there), rather than converting to -EVINAL at the interface. Then a nice multi-year overlap, with a scheduled removal of the old codes some day. Then the input subsystem would work more like most other subsystems, and make userspace programming simpler and easier to "get correct". Cheers -- 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
