Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-56971-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 11:07:26 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Joe Damato <jdamato@fastly.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 chuck.lever@oracle.com, jlayton@kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
 brauner@kernel.org, edumazet@google.com, davem@davemloft.net,
 alexander.duyck@gmail.com, sridhar.samudrala@intel.com,
 willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com, weiwan@google.com,
 David.Laight@ACULAB.COM, arnd@arndb.de, sdf@google.com,
 amritha.nambiar@intel.com, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Alexander Viro
 <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Nathan Lynch
 <nathanl@linux.ibm.com>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>, Greg
 Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Namjae Jeon
 <linkinjeon@kernel.org>, Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>, Thomas
 Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>, Julien Panis <jpanis@baylibre.com>,
 Andrew Waterman <waterman@eecs.berkeley.edu>, Palmer Dabbelt
 <palmer@dabbelt.com>, Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>, "open
 list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>, "open list:FILESYSTEMS
 (VFS and infrastructure)" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 4/4] eventpoll: Add epoll ioctl for
 epoll_params
Message-ID: <20240207110726.68c07188@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20240207185014.GA1221@fastly.com>
References: <20240205210453.11301-1-jdamato@fastly.com>
	<20240205210453.11301-5-jdamato@fastly.com>
	<ec9791cf-d0a2-4d75-a7d6-00bcab92e823@kernel.org>
	<20240207185014.GA1221@fastly.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 10:50:15 -0800 Joe Damato wrote:
> > This !! is unnecessary. Nonzero values shall be "converted" to true.
> > 
> > But FWIW, the above is nothing which should be blocking, so:
> "> 
> > Reviewed-by: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>  
> 
> netdev maintainers: Jiri marked this with Reviewed-by, but was this review
> what caused "Changes Requested" to be the status set for this patch set in
> patchwork?
> 
> If needed, I'll send a v7 with the changes Jiri suggested and add the
> "Reviewed-by" since the changes are cosmetic, but I wanted to make sure
> this was the reason.

Yes, I think that's it.