On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 05:22:09PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:

On 11-01-25 05:00 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:

quoted

Em 25-01-2011 18:54, Dmitry Torokhov escreveu:

quoted

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 06:09:45AM +1000, Linus Torvalds wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:48 AM, Dmitry Torokhov
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

We should be able to handle the case where scancode is valid even though
it might be unmapped yet. This is regardless of what version of
EVIOCGKEYCODE we use, 1 or 2, and whether it is sparse keymap or not.

Is it possible to validate the scancode by driver?

More appropriately, why not just revert the thing? The version change

Reverting the version increment is a bad thing. I agree with Dmitry that
an application that fails just because the API version were incremented
is buggy.

quoted

Well, then we'll break Ubuntu again as they recompiled their input-utils
package (without fixing the check). And the rest of distros do not seem
to be using that package...

Reverting it will also break the ir-keytable userspace program that it is
meant to be used by the Remote Controller devices, and uses it to adjust
its behaviour to support RC's with more than 16 bits of scancodes.

I agree that it is bad that the ABI broke, but reverting it will cause even
more damage.

There we disagree.  Sure it's a very poorly thought out interface,
but the way to fix it is to put a new one along side the old,
and put the old back the way it was before it got broken.

I'm not making a fuss here for myself -- I'm more than capable of working
around new kernel bugs like these, but for every person like me there are
likely hundreds of others who simply get frustrated and give up.

If you're worried about Ubuntu's adaptation to the buggy regression,
then email their developers (kernel and input-utils packagers) explaining
the revert, and they can coordination their kernel and input-utils updates
to do the Right Thing.

But for all of the rest of us, our systems are broken by this change.

...

quoted

quoted

quoted

As Mark said, breaking user space simply isn't acceptable. And since
breaking user space isn't acceptable, then incrementing the version is
stupid too.

It might not have been the best idea to increment, however I maintain
that if there exists version is can be changed. Otherwise there is no
point in having version at all.

Not arguing in favor of the version numbering, but it is easy to read
the version increment at the beginning of the application, and adjust
if the code will use EVIOCGKEYCODE or EVIOCGKEYCODE_V2 of the ioctl's,
depending on what kernel provides.

Ok, we might be just calling the new ioctl and check for -ENOSYS at
the beginning, using some fake arguments.

quoted

As I said, reverting the version bump will cause yet another wave of
breakages so I propose leaving version as is.

quoted

The way we add new ioctl's is not by incrementing some "ABI version"
crap. It's by adding new ioctl's or system calls or whatever that
simply used to return -ENOSYS or other error before, while preserving
the old ABI. That way old binaries don't break (for _ANY_ reason), and
new binaries can see "oh, this doesn't support the new thing".

That has been done as well; we have 2 new ioctls and kept 2 old ioctls.

That's the problem: you did NOT keep the two old ioctls().
Those got changed too.. so now we have four NEW ioctls(),
none of which backward compatible with userspace.

Please calm down. This, in fact, is not new vs old ioctl problem but
rather particular driver (or rather set of drivers) implementation
issue. Even if we drop the new ioctls and convert the RC code to use the
old ones you'd be observing the same breakage as RC code responds with
-EINVAL to not-yet-established mappings.

I'll see what can be done for these drivers; I guess we could supply a
fake KEY_RESERVED entry for not mapped scancodes if there are mapped
scancodes "above" current one. That should result in the same behavior
for RCs as before.

-- 
Dmitry