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@infradead.org>