> One solution is to redefine hiddev_usage_ref::usage_index as a value > index, and change hiddev_ioctl() to compare it against > field->report_count instead of field->maxusage. In this case the field > name will become incorrect, but there should be no binary > compatibility issues - the call will just fail with EINVAL if the > kernel is too old. > > Another solution is to add a new pair of ioctls which will use an > extended structure with a value_index field added; however, this is > more complex - e.g., if there are duplicate but not adjacent usages in > the same report, or if the report ID is not specified and there are > duplicate usages in different reports.
yea. The only thing is that it is not realistic for me to ask the end user to patch the kernel. I'm looking at using usbdevice_fs to do the writing(as a alternate solution). Hopefully it will work. thanks, Jackson ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting Partner. Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly Commission! INetU Dedicated Managed Hosting http://www.inetu.net/partner/index.php _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
