lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the y2038 tree
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 03:44:17PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 1/21/19 1:23 PM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 09:15:27PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 8:13 PM Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 06:16:22PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:40 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I plan on sending the pidfd branch with the new pidfd_send_signal()
> >>> syscall for the 5.1 window. Should we somehow coordinate so that our
> >>> branches don't conflict? Any suggestions?
> >>
> >> A conflict can't be avoided, but if you pick system call number 427
> >> for pidfd_send_signal, and Jens picks numbers 424 through 426 for
> >
> > That sounds good to me. Since it's only one syscall for the pidfd branch
> > is there anything that speaks against me using 424? Given that the other
> > patchset has 4 new syscalls. :)
> > Jens, any objections?
>
> I'm fine with either one, I'll have to renumber in any case. But it's 3
> new syscalls (424, 425, 426), not 4.
>
> Arnd, what's the best way to make this switch now, in my tree? Would be

Yeah, I'd like to know that as well.

Christian

> great if I didn't have to change it again once I make the change.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-21 23:48    [W:0.054 / U:1.076 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site