[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D3EDE07.1080200@teksavvy.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:28:23 -0500
From: Mark Lord <kernel@...savvy.com>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
CC: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org, mchehab@...hat.com
Subject: Re: 2.6.36/2.6.37: broken compatibility with userspace input-utils
?
On 11-01-25 12:29 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:04:10AM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
>> On 11-01-24 11:55 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:37:06PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
..
>>> The options are:
>>>
>>> 1. Convert to EVIOCGKEYCODE2
>>> 2. Ignore errors from EVIOCGKEYCODE and go through all 65536 iterations.
>>
>> or 3. Revert/fix the in-kernel regression.
>>
>> The EVIOCGKEYCODE ioctl is supposed to return KEY_RESERVED for unmapped
>> (but value) keycodes, and only return -EINVAL when the keycode itself
>> is out of range.
>
> You are inventing rules. You are requesting a scancode->keycode
> mapping. If scancode is unknown/invalid for the device ioctl returns
> -EINVAL.
-EINVAL signals bad/invalid parameters.
That's NOT what is happening here.
> For unmapped - yes, either KEY_RESERVED or KEY_UNKNOWN should be
> returned. For invalid scancodes -EINVAL shoudl be returned.
Exactly my point. The scancode in question is 100% valid and mapable,
yet the kernel is rejecting it as -EINVAL. Incorrect.
BUG. Regression. Breaks userspace. Must get fixed.
Cheers
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists