From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753849Ab1AYO22 (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:28:28 -0500 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 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApIBAMJsPk1Ld/sX/2dsb2JhbAAMhAbNV5BlgSODOHQEhRc X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,374,1291611600"; d="scan'208";a="89156242" Message-ID: <4D3EDE07.1080200@teksavvy.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:28:23 -0500 From: Mark Lord User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dmitry Torokhov CC: Linux Kernel , linux-input@vger.kernel.org, mchehab@redhat.com Subject: Re: 2.6.36/2.6.37: broken compatibility with userspace input-utils ? 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> In-Reply-To: <20110125052902.GC7850@core.coreip.homeip.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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