linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernel IR system?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <m3ocml6ppt.fsf@intrepid.localdomain>
Date:	Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:27:58 +0100
From:	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
To:	Andy Walls <awalls@...ix.net>
Cc:	Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@...il.com>,
	Christoph Bartelmus <lirc@...telmus.de>,
	dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, j@...nau.net, jarod@...hat.com,
	jarod@...sonet.com, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
	maximlevitsky@...il.com, mchehab@...hat.com,
	stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de, superm1@...ntu.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernel IR  system?

1. Do we agree that a lirc (-style) kernel-user interface is needed at
   least?

2. Is there any problem with lirc kernel-user interface?

If the answer for #1 is "yes" and for #2 is "no" then perhaps we merge
the Jarod's lirc patches (at least the core) so at least the
non-controversial part is done?

Doing so doesn't block improving input layer IR interface, does it?
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/