Re: [PATCH v6 00/28] NT synchronization primitive driver

[Peter Zijlstra]

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>