Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Add new system call for non-destructive peek and inspection to posix ipc mqueue

[Mathura]

For context, in the old series of patches, the following major serious
implementation issues and  minor issues were pointed out in feedback
and I  carefully handled all of them in this new series. The earlier
series was messed up, and for some reason, after taking all the
feedback in new one, I just want to move on from there so i started
fresh new patch:

1) Busted implementation leading to bad user space pointer handling

2) Unnecessary obsolete time32 version

3) Some architectures have missing and inconsistent new syscall
numbers in the table

4) Misc. minor issues

     Thanks
    Mathura


On Wed, 18 Mar 2026 at 16:56, Mathura <academic1mathura@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Geert Uytterhoeven,
> Just forget everything that about  work submitted in two weeks ago
> Patch,that is a waste of time to talk, earlier work is  messed up ,no
> modularity , Please focus on the current version that has all related
> information in the cover letter.
> This is fresh work -
>  v1- https://lore.kernel.org/20260306075009.83723-1-academic1mathura@xxxxxxxxx
>  v2-  https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arch/CAMuHMdV4MTNUmZdqMd+PhChDLL6yom2zj1bsiJfiK5+gr+j7Ow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#t
>
> I am resending this email as I was out of station earlier. The main
> list could not be submitted previously because plain text mode was not
> accessible on my phone.
>
> Kindly review the resubmitted details.
>
> Thank you for your understanding.
>
>
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2026 at 15:49, Mathura <academic1mathura@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Greet,
> > Just forget everything that about  work submitted in two weeks ago Patch,that is a waste of time to talk, earlier work is  messed up ,no modularity , Please focus on the current version that has all related information in the cover letter.
> > This is fresh work -
> >  v1- https://lore.kernel.org/20260306075009.83723-1-academic1mathura@xxxxxxxxx
> >  v2-  https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arch/CAMuHMdV4MTNUmZdqMd+PhChDLL6yom2zj1bsiJfiK5+gr+j7Ow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#t
> > Thanks
> >
> > On Wed, 18 Mar 2026 at 15:20, Mathura <academic1mathura@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> I have discarded all previous work and earlier patches, as most of the implementation has been redone from scratch using a completely new approach.
> >> Therefore, please disregard the patches from two weeks ago and review this as a fresh series.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, 18 Mar, 2026, 2:01 pm Geert Uytterhoeven, <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Mathura,
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 at 22:47, Mathura_Kumar <academic1mathura@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> > Patch series overview:
> >>> >
> >>> >   1. Add New system call do_mq_timedreceive2() and handler implementation
> >>> >   2. Add system call number in all  most common arch.
> >>> >   3. Prepared Documentation and test
> >>> >   4. Add entry in performance tools all most common file
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Short Description:
> >>> >
> >>> >     POSIX message queues currently lack a mechanism to read
> >>> >     a message without removing it from the queue. This is a
> >>> >     long-standing limitation,when we require inspection of queue state
> >>> >     without altering it.
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your series!
> >>>
> >>> > change since v1:
> >>> >  - minor update, header guard was removed from include/uapi/linux/mqueue.h
> >>> >  - v1 Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260315040827.156558-1-academic1mathura@xxxxxxxxx/T/#t
> >>>
> >>> Weren't you at v5 before, so how did you get to v1 and v2 again?
> >>> What has changed?
> >>>
> >>> "[PATCH] [PATCH V5] mqueue: introduce new do_mq_timedreceive2() [
> >>> mq_peek syscall] for non-destructive receive and inspection,fix minor
> >>> issue,prepared doc."
> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/20260306075009.83723-1-academic1mathura@xxxxxxxxx
> >>>
> >>> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> >>>
> >>>                         Geert
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>
> >>> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> >>> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
> >>>                                 -- Linus Torvalds