Re: vt.c in 2.1.111

Geert Uytterhoeven (
Mon, 27 Jul 1998 09:52:15 +0200 (CEST)

On Sun, 26 Jul 1998 wrote:
> I just glanced through patch-2.1.111.
> Have not really time to work on console stuff,
> but since I wrote some of the original code,
> and the patch author might not always understand
> the function of the code, let me comment on one detail.
> The patch says
> + /* ++Geert: non-PC keyboards may generate keycode zero */
> +#if !defined(__mc68000__) && !defined(__powerpc__)
> /* assignment to entry 0 only tests validity of args */
> if (!i)
> break;
> +#endif
> but that is wrong, and this part of the patch should be reverted.
> Indeed, the keyboard model is:
> - the hardware generates scancodes
> - sequences of scancodes are parsed into keycodes
> - (further processing)
> The value of scancodes cannot be controlled by the kernel -
> they are hardware-generated. However, the value of the keycodes
> is purely conventional (for example, the Linux kernel and X use
> different keycodes). So, a comment that keyboards may generate
> keycode zero is necessarily false.

Can we please keep it like this for 2.2? Reverting it will break at least
Debian 2.0.

> (Or, without special value, some new ioctls have to be introduced.

I favor the new ioctl. In 2.3.x we can continue our holy wars _and_ find a
solution for the `my keyboard has more than 128 (127?) keys' problem. Yes, such
keyboards exist!

> The special value is used for things like the control over
> allocation and deallocation of keymaps. Only loadkeys and dumpkeys
> know about it.)

And they were patched a very long time ago, too...



Geert Uytterhoeven           
Wavelets, Linux/{m68k~Amiga,PPC~CHRP}
Department of Computer Science -- Katholieke Universiteit Leuven -- Belgium

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