Re: 2.6.36/2.6.37: broken compatibility with userspace input-utils?

From: Mark Lord
Date: Wed Jan 26 2011 - 16:41:16 EST

On 11-01-26 02:50 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 02:47:18PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
>> On 11-01-26 02:41 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>> I do not consider lsinput refusing to work a regression.
>> Obviously, since you don't use that tool.
>> Those of us who do use it see this as broken userspace compatibility.
>> Who the hell reviews this crap, anyway?
>> Code like that should never have made it upstream in the first place.
> You are more than welcome spend more time on reviews.

Somehow I detect a totally lack of sincerity there.

But thanks for fixing the worst of this regression, at least.

Perhaps you might think about eventually fixing the bad use of -EINVAL
in future revisions. One way perhaps to approach that, would be to begin
fixing it internally, but still returning the same things from the actual
f_ops->ioctl() routine.

Then eventually provide new ioctl numbers which return the correct -ENOTTY
(or whatever is best there), rather than converting to -EVINAL at the interface.
Then a nice multi-year overlap, with a scheduled removal of the old codes some day.

Then the input subsystem would work more like most other subsystems,
and make userspace programming simpler and easier to "get correct".

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at