Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1350449 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH] staging/android: add flags member to sync ioctl structs Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> - 2016-03-04 17:50 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] staging/android: add flags member to sync ioctl structs Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2016-03-11 23:00 +0100

#1350449 — Re: [PATCH] staging/android: add flags member to sync ioctl structs

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@collabora.co.uk>
> > 
> > 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 ? ;-)

Thanks, Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1356207

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@collabora.co.uk>
> > > 
> > > 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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web