Hi Geert,
On 10/10/18 19:59, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Hi Michael,
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 12:07 AM Michael Schmitz schmitzmic@gmail.com wrote:
I agree the bug is neither subtle nor recent, not security relevant and will affect only a handful of users at best.
If you're worried about weakening the rules around stable releases, by all means go ahead and veto the inclusion of these patches in the next stable release.
I believe the distro the issue was reported against (Debian ports) will not get the fix until the issue is fixed in the upstream stable release?
That's correct. but there are ways around that. I could petition Ben to add it as a separate patch for now.
Boils down to the same question really - what's the impact of this bug? Will it prevent installation from distribution media f.e.?
Given that it's taken ten years for someone to even notice one aspect (missing key mappings), and then I just happened to see the discussion on the ML (which wasn't even about mapping so much as about keys stuck in autorepeat, which I haven't been able to reproduce), I think it's clear that this has minimal impact. m68k users tend to be reasonably computer savvy, and can install a custom built kernel until Debian catches up with current kernel versions.
Having reread Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst, it's hard for me to argue these patches belong in stable.
Cheers,
Michael
On 09/10/18 08:20, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 12:09 PM Michael Schmitz schmitzmic@gmail.com wrote:
someone on debian-68k reported the bug, which (to me) indicates that the code is not just used by me.
Whether or not a functioning Capslock is essential to have? You be the judge of that. If you are OK with applying the keymap patch, why not this one?
I have exactly the same concerns about the keymap patch. This all has not been working correctly for many many years (and it was not broken in a subtly way as far as I understand, but rather quite obvious). Thus I do not understand why this belongs to stable release. It is not a [recent] regression, nor secutiry bug, nor even enabling of new hardware, that is why I myself did not mark it as stable.
I still maintain that we pick up for stable too many patches for no clear benefit. This is similar to the patch for Atmel controllers that was picked to stable and I asked why, as it is not clear how many users might be affected (or if the problem the patch was solving was purely theoretical, or only affecting hardware that is not in circulation yet).
Debian will carry stable patches without explicit action on behalf of the maintainer. Unstable patches are a little harder to get accepted.
On 09/10/18 06:11, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 8:25 AM Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org wrote:
From: Michael Schmitz schmitzmic@gmail.com
[ Upstream commit 52d2c7bf7c90217fbe875d2d76f310979c48eb83 ]
The CapsLock key on Atari keyboards is not a toggle, it does send the normal make and break scancodes.
Drop the CapsLock toggle handling code, which did cause the CapsLock key to merely act as a Shift key.
This has been broken for 10+ years. Does it really make sense to promote it to stable?
Tested-by: Michael Schmitz schmitzmic@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Michael Schmitz schmitzmic@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Andreas Schwab schwab@linux-m68k.org Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin alexander.levin@microsoft.com
drivers/input/keyboard/atakbd.c | 10 ++-------- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)diff --git a/drivers/input/keyboard/atakbd.c b/drivers/input/keyboard/atakbd.c index 524a72bee55a..fdeda0b0fbd6 100644 --- a/drivers/input/keyboard/atakbd.c +++ b/drivers/input/keyboard/atakbd.c @@ -189,14 +189,8 @@ static void atakbd_interrupt(unsigned char scancode, char down)
scancode = atakbd_keycode[scancode];
if (scancode == KEY_CAPSLOCK) { /* CapsLock is a toggle switch key on Amiga */input_report_key(atakbd_dev, scancode, 1);input_report_key(atakbd_dev, scancode, 0);input_sync(atakbd_dev);} else {input_report_key(atakbd_dev, scancode, down);input_sync(atakbd_dev);}
input_report_key(atakbd_dev, scancode, down);input_sync(atakbd_dev); } else /* scancodes >= 0xf3 are mouse data, most likely */ printk(KERN_INFO "atakbd: unhandled scancode %x\n", scancode);Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert