[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2024052901-police-trash-e9f9@gregkh>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 08:04:40 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Nick Bowler <nbowler@...conx.ca>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
Alexey Gladkov <legion@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: kbd busted in linux 6.10-rc1 (regression)
On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 06:25:43AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 12:45:56AM -0400, Nick Bowler quoted:
>
> > All other headers use _IOC() macros to describe ioctls for a long time
> > now. This header is stuck in the last century.
> >
> > Simply use the _IO() macro. No other changes.
>
> ... are needed, since _IO() is arch-dependent; this is quite enough to fuck
> alpha and sparc over. _IO(x,y) is (1<<29) + 256*x + y there; both ports
> got started with compat userland support, so _IO...() family there is
> modelled after OSF/1 and Solaris resp.
>
> kbd ioctls predate all of that.
>
> Please, revert 8c467f330059 - commit in question breaks userland on alpha
> and on sparc for no reason whatsoever. Might be worth adding a comment
> to those definitions at some point, but that can go on top of revert.
>
> Folks, 0xXYZW is *not* an uncool way to spell _IO(0xXY,0xZW) - if there's
> any chance that those definitions are seen on all architectures, they
> should be left alone.
>
Ick, I missed that and to be fair, I should have remembered that and not
taken this commit. I'll get this reverted later tonight when I get back
to my development systems.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists