Re: [PATCH] staging/android: add flags member to sync ioctl structs

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

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