On Tuesday, 20 February 2024 01:01:59 CST Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024, at 23:38, Elizabeth Figura wrote:
> > NtWaitForMultipleObjects() can receive a timeout in two forms, relative or
> > absolute. Relative timeouts are unaffected by changes to the system time and do
> > not count down while the system suspends; for absolute timeouts the opposite is
> > true.
> >
> > In order to make the interface and implementation simpler, the ntsync driver
> > only deals in absolute timeouts. However, we need to be able to emulate both
> > behaviours apropos suspension and time adjustment, which is achieved by allowing
> > either the MONOTONIC or REALTIME clock to be used.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Elizabeth Figura <zfigura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I understand that there is no practical problem in building
> up the API one patch at a time in the initial merge, but
> it still feels wrong to have an incompatible ABI change in
> the middle of the series:
>
> > @@ -35,6 +37,8 @@ struct ntsync_wait_args {
> > __u32 owner;
> > __u32 index;
> > __u32 alert;
> > + __u32 flags;
> > + __u32 pad;
> > };
>
> If this was patch to get merged at any later point, you'd have
> to support both the shorter and the longer structure layout
> with their distinct ioctl command codes.
>
> If you do a v3 series, maybe just merge this patch into the
> one that introduces the struct ntsync_wait_args. Overall,
> you could probably have fewer but larger patches anyway
> without harming the review process, but other than this
> one that is not a problem.
Oops, yes, that does feel wrong now that you point it out.
I'll squash this in v3, assuming there's a need for one.
--Zeb
