Re: INPUT_COMPAT_TEST

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

On 09/07/2011 11:16 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 01:04:53AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 07/08/2011 05:35 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>>
>>> Input only need to do this compat stuff on read/write paths so maybe if
>>> you add plumbing similar to compat_ioctl we could switch owver to it.
>>>
>>
>> The problem is that read/write ties into a large number of system calls,
>> and input is the *only* subsystem which needs it.
>>
> 
> BTW, while listening to x32 resentation on LPC I realized that the need
> for compat tests on read/write paths in input subsystem is due to use of
> timeval in input_event structures. If x32 solved the time_t issue by
> moving to 64 bit times then input read/write should simply use native
> 64 bit operations.
> 
> That still leaves sysfs and proc business of course...
> 

I thought there were pointers, (or longs) there too.

In fact, we might have had the worst of both worlds here...

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.