Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.36 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.36;
Feedback-ID: i56a14606:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.9.0-alpha0-958-g1b1b911df8-fm-20230927.002-g1b1b911d
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <af82e327-5d80-4031-a1a7-a275bed8e248@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <b7c57f03-4606-4190-98c5-344c49656f9c@kernel.dk>
References: <20231009123118.4487a0e1@canb.auug.org.au>
 <20231009084812.GB14330@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <cb4bb8e2-7dfe-4ca4-aa70-060f7b2f8f95@app.fastmail.com>
 <20231009141351.GD14330@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <b7c57f03-4606-4190-98c5-344c49656f9c@kernel.dk>
Date:   Mon, 09 Oct 2023 16:21:54 +0200
From:   "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>
To:     "Jens Axboe" <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     "Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-next <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Sohil Mehta" <sohil.mehta@intel.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the asm-generic tree
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 9, 2023, at 16:16, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/9/23 8:13 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 11:00:19AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>
>>> 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)
>
> From my point of view, this isn't a huge problem if we do it now. The
> io_uring-futex branch is a separate branch and I have nothing on top of
> it, so I could easily just re-pull your updated branch and rebase my
> changes on top.
>
>> Or do we want to keep this fixup in the merge resolution and make sure
>> Linus is aware?
>
> If you're OK with it, I'd say let's rebase and save ourselves the
> trouble at merge time.

Sounds good, thanks.

If it's any help, I can also merge the patches that wire up the
syscalls through the asm-generic tree to avoid the conflicts
altogether.

     Arnd