![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tuesday 14 June 2005 02:47, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Tuesday 14 June 2005 02:32, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > >>And yes, we should break compability and come up with a clean > >>implementation. > > > > But those pesky users scream every time we break their mice ;) > > > >>And as the original input event is an abomination I > >>don't see the point in keeping compability with a broken interface. > >> > > > > Why is it abomination (aside from using old mechanism to call > > hotplug)? It looks like it transmits all data necessary to load > > appropriate input handler... > > > Because there are _two_ events with the name 'input'. > Both run under the same name but carry different information. > One is required to load the module and the other is required to create > the device node. > > That's what I call an abomination. > Ah, I see. Yep, it "input" wasn't reused when input_handlers were converted to class_simple we probably would not have this discussion now. -- Dmitry - 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: 2005-06-14 10:01 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||