lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jul]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Fix NR_KEYS off-by-one error
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 10:41:03AM +0200, Andries Brouwer wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 10:07:57AM +0200, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
>
> > Let me summarize.
> >
> > In the past, the kernel had various different values of NR_KEYS, in this
> > order: 128, 512, 256, 255.
> >
> > 128 was not enough, 512 didn't fit in a byte (while allowed to address
> > all keycodes the input layer uses), 256 broke some apps that relied on
> > unsigned char counters,
>
> Can you elaborate on this part? Which applications broke?

Hmm, so bk says it was the other way around:

128, 256, 512, 255

And 256 probably worked for most people, except loadkeys had to be
changed not to #define NR_KEYS itself. So now I believe that 256 could
actually be safe.

> Revert Andrew's patch: yes.
> Choosing 255/256 - I have no opinion yet, my opinion will depend
> on your answer to the above "Which applications broke?".

--
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs, SuSE CR
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:04    [W:0.247 / U:0.804 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site