Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:30:10 +0100
From:   Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the y2038 tree
Message-ID: <20190122103009.vu2a67kviqhcb3cn@brauner.io>
References: <20190121143951.68956db3@canb.auug.org.au>
 <CAK8P3a0Yth+f8AANE6g8c_zE0Zt1CvCdzMDFK=pr8eNqmrBV0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190121191306.ifga5aw5atu2vvb7@brauner.io>
 <CAK8P3a2CkXJ=giXQgxEcQAeH1Wt8jKc_P+YTOLJpUPVKYU8m9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190121202328.rgrv54lybilsvitu@brauner.io>
 <da262bd9-1de0-eabb-ee44-e0ee152d15bb@kernel.dk>
 <20190121224811.gbvg22vg4kgg4kbs@brauner.io>
 <CAK8P3a0ej9NcJM8wXNPbcGUyOUZYX+VLoDFdbenW3s3114oQZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190122093146.kmckcgdbvo2e7v3c@brauner.io>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190122093146.kmckcgdbvo2e7v3c@brauner.io>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:31:46AM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:26:56AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 11:48 PM Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > > great if I didn't have to change it again once I make the change.
> > 
> > I'd suggest that you each just take the numbers we talked about and
> > add them in your respective git trees, at the end of the current tables.

What should we do about unistd.h? We can't just bump that to 42*, right?

Christian