Re: [PATCH] Fix NR_KEYS off-by-one error

[Vojtech Pavlik]

On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 10:41:03AM +0200, Andries Brouwer wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 10:07:57AM +0200, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> 
> > Let me summarize.
> > 
> > In the past, the kernel had various different values of NR_KEYS, in this
> > order: 128, 512, 256, 255.
> > 
> > 128 was not enough, 512 didn't fit in a byte (while allowed to address
> > all keycodes the input layer uses), 256 broke some apps that relied on
> > unsigned char counters,
> 
> Can you elaborate on this part? Which applications broke?

Hmm, so bk says it was the other way around:

128, 256, 512, 255

And 256 probably worked for most people, except loadkeys had to be
changed not to #define NR_KEYS itself. So now I believe that 256 could
actually be safe.

> Revert Andrew's patch: yes.
> Choosing 255/256 - I have no opinion yet, my opinion will depend
> on your answer to the above "Which applications broke?".

-- 
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs, SuSE CR
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/