Re: [PATCH 00/31] NT synchronization primitive driver

2024-02-21 Thread Alexey Dobriyan
On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 09:01:53AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 07:31:12PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > > drivers/misc/ntsync.c | 1146 ++ > > > > Assuming this doesn't go into futex(2) or some other existing code... > > > >

Re: [PATCH 00/31] NT synchronization primitive driver

2024-02-17 Thread Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 07:31:12PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > drivers/misc/ntsync.c | 1146 ++ > > Assuming this doesn't go into futex(2) or some other existing code... > > Can you start putting all of this into top-level "windows" directory? > I suspect

Re: [PATCH 00/31] NT synchronization primitive driver

2024-02-16 Thread Alexey Dobriyan
> drivers/misc/ntsync.c | 1146 ++ Assuming this doesn't go into futex(2) or some other existing code... Can you start putting all of this into top-level "windows" directory? I suspect there will be more Windows stuff in the future. So those who don't care

Re: [PATCH 00/31] NT synchronization primitive driver

2024-02-14 Thread Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 06:01:22PM -0600, Elizabeth Figura wrote: > On Wednesday, 14 February 2024 17:36:36 CST Elizabeth Figura wrote: > > This patch series introduces a new char misc driver, /dev/ntsync, which is > > used > > to implement Windows NT synchronization primitives. > > Ugh, sorry,

Re: [PATCH 00/31] NT synchronization primitive driver

2024-02-14 Thread Elizabeth Figura
On Wednesday, 14 February 2024 17:36:36 CST Elizabeth Figura wrote: > This patch series introduces a new char misc driver, /dev/ntsync, which is > used > to implement Windows NT synchronization primitives. Ugh, sorry, I made a bit of a mess while sending this revision. I accidentally sent 000*

[PATCH 00/31] NT synchronization primitive driver

2024-02-14 Thread Elizabeth Figura
This patch series introduces a new char misc driver, /dev/ntsync, which is used to implement Windows NT synchronization primitives. This was previously submitted as an RFC [1]. Since there were no major changes requested to the last RFC revision, I've stripped the RFC prefix. [1]