On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 12:58:36PM -0600, Elizabeth Figura wrote: > I would like to repeat a question from the last round of review, though. Two > changes were suggested related to API design, which I did not make because the > APIs in question were already released in upstream Linux. However, the driver is > also completely nonfunctional and hidden behind BROKEN, so would this be > acceptable anyway? The changes in question are: > > * rename NTSYNC_IOC_SEM_POST to NTSYNC_IOC_SEM_RELEASE (matching the NT > terminology instead of POSIX), > > * change object creation ioctls to return the fds directly in the return value > instead of through the args struct. I would also still appreciate a > clarification on the advice in [1], which is why I didn't do this in the first > place. I see no problem making those changes; esp. since Arnd doesn't seem to object to the latter. > Elizabeth Figura (28): > ntsync: Introduce NTSYNC_IOC_WAIT_ANY. > ntsync: Introduce NTSYNC_IOC_WAIT_ALL. > ntsync: Introduce NTSYNC_IOC_CREATE_MUTEX. > ntsync: Introduce NTSYNC_IOC_MUTEX_UNLOCK. > ntsync: Introduce NTSYNC_IOC_MUTEX_KILL. > ntsync: Introduce NTSYNC_IOC_CREATE_EVENT. > ntsync: Introduce NTSYNC_IOC_EVENT_SET. > ntsync: Introduce NTSYNC_IOC_EVENT_RESET. > ntsync: Introduce NTSYNC_IOC_EVENT_PULSE. > ntsync: Introduce NTSYNC_IOC_SEM_READ. > ntsync: Introduce NTSYNC_IOC_MUTEX_READ. > ntsync: Introduce NTSYNC_IOC_EVENT_READ. > ntsync: Introduce alertable waits. Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
