From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Lord Subject: Re: 2.6.36/2.6.37: broken compatibility with userspace input-utils ? Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:28:23 -0500 Message-ID: <4D3EDE07.1080200@teksavvy.com> References: <4D3C5F73.2050408@teksavvy.com> <20110124175456.GA17855@core.coreip.homeip.net> <4D3E1A08.5060303@teksavvy.com> <20110125005555.GA18338@core.coreip.homeip.net> <4D3E4DD1.60705@teksavvy.com> <20110125042016.GA7850@core.coreip.homeip.net> <4D3E5372.9010305@teksavvy.com> <20110125045559.GB7850@core.coreip.homeip.net> <4D3E59CA.6070107@teksavvy.com> <20110125052902.GC7850@core.coreip.homeip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.183]:27659 "EHLO ironport2-out.pppoe.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753677Ab1AYO21 (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:28:27 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20110125052902.GC7850@core.coreip.homeip.net> Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: Linux Kernel , linux-input@vger.kernel.org, mchehab@redhat.com On 11-01-25 12:29 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:04:10AM -0500, Mark Lord wrote: >> On 11-01-24 11:55 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:37:06PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote: .. >>> The options are: >>> >>> 1. Convert to EVIOCGKEYCODE2 >>> 2. Ignore errors from EVIOCGKEYCODE and go through all 65536 iterations. >> >> or 3. Revert/fix the in-kernel regression. >> >> The EVIOCGKEYCODE ioctl is supposed to return KEY_RESERVED for unmapped >> (but value) keycodes, and only return -EINVAL when the keycode itself >> is out of range. > > You are inventing rules. You are requesting a scancode->keycode > mapping. If scancode is unknown/invalid for the device ioctl returns > -EINVAL. -EINVAL signals bad/invalid parameters. That's NOT what is happening here. > For unmapped - yes, either KEY_RESERVED or KEY_UNKNOWN should be > returned. For invalid scancodes -EINVAL shoudl be returned. Exactly my point. The scancode in question is 100% valid and mapable, yet the kernel is rejecting it as -EINVAL. Incorrect. BUG. Regression. Breaks userspace. Must get fixed. Cheers