From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753919Ab1AZT2Q (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:28:16 -0500 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.183]:34278 "EHLO ironport2-out.pppoe.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751435Ab1AZT2O (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:28:14 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApIBAI8EQE1Ld/sX/2dsb2JhbAAMhAbNfZEDgSODOHQEhRc X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,381,1291611600"; d="scan'208";a="89334059" Message-ID: <4D4075CD.8060402@teksavvy.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:28:13 -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: Gerd Hoffmann CC: Dmitry Torokhov , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel , linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.36/2.6.37: broken compatibility with userspace input-utils ? References: <20110125205453.GA19896@core.coreip.homeip.net> <4D3F4804.6070508@redhat.com> <4D3F4D11.9040302@teksavvy.com> <20110125232914.GA20130@core.coreip.homeip.net> <20110126020003.GA23085@core.coreip.homeip.net> <4D4004F9.6090200@redhat.com> <4D401CC5.4020000@redhat.com> <4D402D35.4090206@redhat.com> <20110126165132.GC29163@core.coreip.homeip.net> <4D4059E5.7050300@redhat.com> <20110126182415.GB29268@core.coreip.homeip.net> <4D4072F9.5060206@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4D4072F9.5060206@redhat.com> 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 11-01-26 02:16 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Hi, > >>>> The check should be against concrete version (0x10000 in this case). > > 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? As already established earlier in this thread, by Linus Torvalds as well as by myself, NO! That whole "version" concept is broken and inappropriate. Userspace should simply ignore it completely. Cheers