On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 05:40:29PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 08:17:14AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 11:37:17AM -0300, Gustavo Padovan wrote: > > > From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Play safe and add flags member to all structs. So we don't need to > > > break API or create new IOCTL in the future if new features that requires > > > flags arises. > > > > > > v2: check if flags are valid (zero, in this case) > > > > > > v3: return -EINVAL if flags are not zero'ed > > > > > > v4: add padding for 64-bit alignment > > > > > > v5: rebase to use only stacked sync_file_info > > > > Why are these vX things here in the changelog? > > Because this is drm and we're special ;-) > > > And you just broke all existing userspace users of this code, why are > > you allowed to do that? > > > > not ok... > > We could do fence2.h if you absolutely insist and just forget about the > current one, but that seemed silly. Like Gustavo said, everyone who > actually cares about this stuff is perfectly fine with this. And there's > not a single user of this in upstream anyway, so the only trees we could > break are vendor trees with massive amounts of additional stuff. > > Is that reasonable ok for you, or do you insist we do a fences2.h without > going through staging ? ;-) Ok, if everyone is ok with this api changing, and will not get mad if it breaks things, I'm all for fixing this up. I just want all of your signed-off-by lines on the series please. Please respond to the v7 of this series and I'll be glad to queue them up. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
