lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Oct]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the asm-generic tree
On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 11:00:19AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023, at 10:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 12:31:18PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> diff --cc arch/alpha/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> >> index 5d05ab716a74,b1865f9bb31e..000000000000
> >> --- a/arch/alpha/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> >> +++ b/arch/alpha/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> >> @@@ -492,4 -492,6 +492,7 @@@
> >> 560 common set_mempolicy_home_node sys_ni_syscall
> >> 561 common cachestat sys_cachestat
> >> 562 common fchmodat2 sys_fchmodat2
> >> -563 common futex_wake sys_futex_wake
> >> -564 common futex_wait sys_futex_wait
> >> -565 common futex_requeue sys_futex_requeue
> >> +563 common map_shadow_stack sys_map_shadow_stack
> >> ++564 common futex_wake sys_futex_wake
> >> ++565 common futex_wait sys_futex_wait
> >> ++566 common futex_requeue sys_futex_requeue
> >
> > So this renumbers the (futex) stuff on Alpha, does anybody care? AFAICT
> > Alpha does not follow the unistd order and meh.
>
> Let's not make it worse for now. All the numbers since the
> introduction of the time64 syscalls are offset by exactly 120
> on alpha, and I'd prefer to keep it that way for the moment.
>
> I still hope to eventually finish the conversion of all architectures
> to a single syscall.tbl for numbers >400, and if that happens before
> the end of alpha, a different ordering would just be extra pain.

Fair enough; should we look at rebase those futex patches for this? (bit
of a pain as that would also mean rebasing block)

Or do we want to keep this fixup in the merge resolution and make sure
Linus is aware?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-10-09 16:15    [W:0.165 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site