We basically _never_ have to upgrade userspace that aggressively. We can
have a Changes file that talks about things that will eventually break
when we remove support for it eventually, but it should never EVER be used
as an excuse for "I needed to break it now".
So no, I refuse to make it any more prominent. Because it would just be
used as an excuse for behavior that I consider unacceptable. It was
different back when we had 3-year development windows and people upgrading
from 2.4.x to 2.6.x had to learn new things, but for 2.6.26 to .27 or
similar it's simply not acceptable.
Look at the VFS layer. Look at how we have multiple different versions of
"readdir()" (well, getdents, really), and "stat()". Exactly because we
don't break user space.
Ok, I can see how it's confused, asking for KEY_MAX _bits_. If this is the
main user, why not just change the definition to be in bits?
A year down the line would be 2.6.30 or so.
Maybe the problem is a bad design that encourages people to just create
new keycodes when they really shouldn't?
Linus
--