Re: [PATCH] vt: add an event interface

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

> > Just a side-note, please run new patches through 
> > scripts/checkpatch.pl:
> > 
> >     total: 4 errors, 2 warnings, 0 checks, 294 lines checked
> 
> Given the code doesn't currently *work* yet but is a first draft 
> its hardly important and there are better uses of time than 
> playing checkpatch policeman.

Well i noticed such details in your final commits that go upstream 
as well - you dont appear to be making full use of the patch quality 
tools we have.

(Also, the patch carried your Signed-off-by - which we add if we 
consider patches worthy for upstream.)

I'd have made similar comments had a newbie submitted this patch as 
well - i dont think you should be held to lower standards than 
newbies - in fact by all means you should be held to a higher 
standard as you serve as a role model. I hope you dont regard 
constructive review feedback as 'policing' you.

Also, some of the warnings were relevant beyond pure stylistic 
details:

> >  - the copy_from_user() in vt_event_wait_ioctl() could be shortened 
> >    if we didnt pass in an unsigned long (which is pointless anyway).
> >    The cast to void __user * should be done in the ioctl 
> >    demultiplexer vt_ioctl(), and the ioctl ugliness should not 
> >    invade cleaner child functions such as vt_event_wait_ioctl().
> > 
> >  - same for vt_event_wait_ioctl() - it passes in a type damaged by 
> >    ioctl's limitations. Such type limitations and ioctl demuxing 
> >    artifacts should be kept local to vt_ioctl().
> 
> That had already occurred to me. The events should also become a 
> mask so you can wait for several at once. What I wanted to know 
> was whether such an interface actually meets Lennart's 
> requirements.

	Ingo