[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D4075E5.70401@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:28:37 -0200
From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>
To: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
CC: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Mark Lord <kernel@...savvy.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.36/2.6.37: broken compatibility with userspace input-utils
?
Em 26-01-2011 17:16, Gerd Hoffmann escreveu:
> Hi,
>
>>>> The check should be against concrete version (0x10000 in this case).
Dmitry,
Ok, now I see what you're meaning. Yeah, an absolute version check like
what you've proposed is better than a relative version check.
>
> Stepping back: what does the version mean?
>
> 0x10000 == 1.0 ?
> 0x10001 == 1.1 ?
>
> Can I expect the interface stay backward compatible if only the minor revision changes, i.e. makes it sense to accept 1.x?
>
> Will the major revision ever change? Does it make sense to check the version at all?
Gerd,
Dmitry will likely have a better answer for me, but I think you should
just remove the test. By principle, the interface should always be
backward compatible (if it isn't, then we have a regression to fix).
You may expect newer features on newer versions, so I understand
that the version check is there to just allow userspace to enable
new code for newer evdev protocol revisions.
Thanks,
Mauro
--
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