linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/20] Input: iforce - remove "being used" silliness

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]

Date:   Wed, 19 Sep 2018 10:10:39 -0700
From:   Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:     Tim Schumacher <timschumi@....de>
Cc:     linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/20] Input: iforce - remove "being used" silliness

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 04:51:26PM +0200, Tim Schumacher wrote:
> On 18.09.18 02:47, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > The kernel is supposed to handle multiple devices, static flags
> > in packet handling code will never work.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
> > ---
> > 
> > This is a random assortment of iforce patches that I made a few weeks back.
> > 
> > Tim, I do not have hardware, so I was bound to screw it up, but if you
> > have some time I'd appreciate if you try them out (and if I indeed broke
> > things if you could identify issues that would be even more awesome).
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> Hello Dmitry,
> 
> I tested those patches and I didn't find any obvious issues. The basic functions
> do work (i.e. buttons and axes, don't have a HAT so I can't test that), force
> feedback seems to work to the extent it was before (I only have fftest though,
> no games that support force feedback). I'll go through a few more applications
> and see if anything not obvious is broken.
> 

Thank you for taking a look.

> Unfortunately, I only have that one wheel and I can only test USB connections
> at the moment (unless I find a proper serial adaptor, but I'm not sure if that
> would even work).
> 
> Are those patches planned to go into 4.19 or are they intended to be merged in
> the next development cycle?

Definitely not 4.19. Could be 4.20 or 4.21...

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry