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

[Mark Lord]

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".

Cheers
--
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/