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

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab]

Em 26-01-2011 17:16, Gerd Hoffmann escreveu:
>   Hi,
> 
>>>> The check should be against concrete version (0x10000 in this case).

Dmitry,

Ok, now I see what you're meaning. Yeah, an absolute version check like
what you've proposed is better than a relative version check.

> 
> Stepping back: what does the version mean?
> 
> 0x10000 == 1.0 ?
> 0x10001 == 1.1 ?
> 
> Can I expect the interface stay backward compatible if only the minor revision changes, i.e. makes it sense to accept 1.x?
> 
> Will the major revision ever change?  Does it make sense to check the version at all?

Gerd,

Dmitry will likely have a better answer for me, but I think you should
just remove the test. By principle, the interface should always be 
backward compatible (if it isn't, then we have a regression to fix). 
You may expect newer features on newer versions, so I understand 
that the version check is there to just allow userspace to enable 
new code for newer evdev protocol revisions.

Thanks,
Mauro
--
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/