[PATCH v2 0/5] termios: _SPEED_MAX and _BAUD_MAX, manual improvements

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 2025-07-14 06:28, Adhemerval Zanella Netto wrote:
>>
>> Just to clarify, I signed Reviewed-by for patch 1/5 and 2/5 since they
>> are simple documentation fixes. You know much more about terminals than
>> I do, so I am not super comfortable reviewing the others. :)
>>
>> I'll post a comment on 4/5 though.
> 
> We are on hard-freeze for now, so I will postpone install theses patches
> to 2.43 even though they are documentation ones.  We just hit a gcc build
> regression on recent termios cleanup [1], which most likely we will need
> to revert.
> 

What about 4/5?  They are a very minor API change and would be 
unfortunate if they could not be relied on for the baud_t interface.

The ioctl changes causing problems are not surprising, because the 
sanitizer people did the wrong thing in fixing them: I posted on the 
sanitizer bug that the right thing since what they want is to capture 
the *kernel* interfaces is for them to use the kernel headers
<linux/termios.h> and <linux/ioctl.h> *instead* of <termios.h> and
<sys/ioctl.h> (they cannot use both.)

	-hpa