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

Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2011-01-26T19:29:18Z

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