Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-36581-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Feedback-ID: i56a14606:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.11.0-alpha0-119-ga8b98d1bd8-fm-20240108.001-ga8b98d1b
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <4027ec4c-1e11-40fc-a9af-07732d7c3c1a@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240124004028.16826-9-zfigura@codeweavers.com>
References: <20240124004028.16826-1-zfigura@codeweavers.com>
 <20240124004028.16826-9-zfigura@codeweavers.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:42:19 +0100
From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>
To: "Elizabeth Figura" <zfigura@codeweavers.com>,
 "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org
Cc: wine-devel@winehq.org,
 =?UTF-8?Q?Andr=C3=A9_Almeida?= <andrealmeid@igalia.com>,
 "Wolfram Sang" <wsa@kernel.org>, "Arkadiusz Hiler" <ahiler@codeweavers.com>,
 "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 8/9] ntsync: Introduce NTSYNC_IOC_PUT_MUTEX.
Content-Type: text/plain

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.

     Arnd