From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752767Ab0LSIiD (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Dec 2010 03:38:03 -0500 Received: from ch-smtp03.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.214]:57051 "EHLO ch-smtp03.sth.basefarm.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752090Ab0LSIiB (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Dec 2010 03:38:01 -0500 From: "Henrik Rydberg" Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 09:37:47 +0100 To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: Jiri Kosina , linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Input: Fix double equality sign in uevent Message-ID: <20101219083746.GA5892@polaris.bitmath.org> References: <1292700717-1610-1-git-send-email-rydberg@euromail.se> <20101219080427.GA10074@core.coreip.homeip.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101219080427.GA10074@core.coreip.homeip.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Originating-IP: 83.248.200.95 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1PUEmC-0005m8-Ca. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp03.sth.basefarm.net 1PUEmC-0005m8-Ca 39a67bcb4d2a901b32fa2438c2d2700b Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 12:04:28AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 08:31:57PM +0100, Henrik Rydberg wrote: > > Looking at the uevent stream for input devices, all properties > > are on the form "A=B" except the bitmap values, which are on the > > form "A==B". Remedied with this patch. > > > > Cc: stable@kernel.org > > Signed-off-by: Henrik Rydberg > > --- > > Hi Dmitry, > > > > Unless the input bitmap properties should really behave differently, > > this patch ought to be a candidate for 2.6.37. > > > > Hmm, I do not think so because: > > - either nobody uses bitmap variables and then it is not priority > - users worked around the problem and by applying fix we'd be > breaking their setups. > > I think we should apply it but at the beginning of .38 cycle to give us > a chance to evaluate and maybe revert. > > Does this make sense? Indeed, since the problem has been around at least since 2007, it makes perfect sense. Thanks, Henrik