From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.codeweavers.com (mail.codeweavers.com [4.36.192.163]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C04C27E778; Wed, 24 Jan 2024 18:03:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=4.36.192.163 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706119397; cv=none; b=Ef85waT4cRLHEiErkpqSeNm1qrUcmO+AAvzuIQa5pvMKRHwUH1MCnldHRb43mRl9Brj4tvfJJo4RolegjhMfWm0C855Fr1GYalWzb2NMnHvwdj+0n28bqJZ8C+Kut/klItFJ6gNDzfWQ/o2XTxUQEe9UB+ZXMbWxu7XgrPddQB8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706119397; c=relaxed/simple; bh=bTzKhd4Vdam5ERW3M7c5bvxorwduJzmfAqrXA6UqVAA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Y6CmXNaIKNOiqoXmfDzkbpKj29UC8XKqtT3B3eDr3o5rJf2ZOt/WxQQQU2rXwnq1Y2G9eE3BW8XdYknPFT2LDxyLA/F41GHlhgWms4pWBRtYLcjiNAFCELFXZbkCTg/uOhUNzGgZEH0bqKXolIL+bDBzYQAiRR6TZ23B1WawZjY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeweavers.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=codeweavers.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=codeweavers.com header.i=@codeweavers.com header.b=OGAnfko9; arc=none smtp.client-ip=4.36.192.163 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeweavers.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=codeweavers.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=codeweavers.com header.i=@codeweavers.com header.b="OGAnfko9" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=codeweavers.com; s=s1; h=Message-ID:Date:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender; bh=EgQaF8x2DRjGMV5K7O4i6mK/I6jmASKOSLI9NikLiVQ=; b=OGAnfko9CUjl52+4q4w3XK/FJu v+hIFX9ql6Xu3SL4KhkEdM1w6L1383UDISKQLKxJq8+JB4D+Lwl5sil94/HsCOVc2mhWnVwbKvwj9 pj3V9+5dFdLzdBQbsXwl2aPx6wym4ai6UEvfm9Czwanb1Wfc7dMClF5Zhi9wVj8pxKqKEGcpEGjBz 6S3mGKpKPr0R9BeafF+NJ2uqV8GeoLSoJSF7oiuUbDaDP3p7O8gIjD09q+6Z0qgMMuJ3t7bsl21Ls Ro+fZbXFsMWSQsMzhyLhUlLiUjALxYOVglyJG198wrN8w2Tps4aG0N80lJQDvL6xEMiqnSIoi3JC1 xOTTq5Sg==; Received: from cw137ip160.mn.codeweavers.com ([10.69.137.160] helo=camazotz.localnet) by mail.codeweavers.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1rShaj-00EKfU-14; Wed, 24 Jan 2024 12:03:13 -0600 From: Elizabeth Figura To: Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann Cc: wine-devel@winehq.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9?= Almeida , Wolfram Sang , Arkadiusz Hiler , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 8/9] ntsync: Introduce NTSYNC_IOC_PUT_MUTEX. Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 12:03:13 -0600 Message-ID: <2171522.irdbgypaU6@camazotz> In-Reply-To: <4027ec4c-1e11-40fc-a9af-07732d7c3c1a@app.fastmail.com> References: <20240124004028.16826-1-zfigura@codeweavers.com> <20240124004028.16826-9-zfigura@codeweavers.com> <4027ec4c-1e11-40fc-a9af-07732d7c3c1a@app.fastmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-api@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Wednesday, 24 January 2024 01:42:19 CST Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024, at 01:40, Elizabeth Figura wrote: > > @@ -738,6 +803,8 @@ static long ntsync_char_ioctl(struct file *file, > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/ntsync.h b/include/uapi/linux/ntsync.h > > index 26d1b3d4847f..2e44e7e77776 100644 > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/ntsync.h > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/ntsync.h > > @@ -46,5 +46,7 @@ struct ntsync_wait_args { > > struct ntsync_wait_args) > > #define NTSYNC_IOC_CREATE_MUTEX _IOWR(NTSYNC_IOC_BASE, 5, \ > > struct ntsync_mutex_args) > > +#define NTSYNC_IOC_PUT_MUTEX _IOWR(NTSYNC_IOC_BASE, 6, \ > > + struct ntsync_mutex_args) > > > > In your implementation, this argument is not written back to > user space, so I think this should be _IOW rather than than _IORW. > > Again, no practical difference here. Hm, but there is a put_user() at the end of the function, or am I missing something?