From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_NEOMUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6A9FC31681 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 19:13:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B80E2089F for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 19:13:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=brauner.io header.i=@brauner.io header.b="QNo/35Gh" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727919AbfAUTNM (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jan 2019 14:13:12 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-f67.google.com ([209.85.128.67]:34637 "EHLO mail-wm1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727790AbfAUTNM (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jan 2019 14:13:12 -0500 Received: by mail-wm1-f67.google.com with SMTP id y185so6859852wmd.1 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 11:13:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=brauner.io; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=pT7yG+ZIRuSsRQUlc7aUe2hsaluY9tnGkzf/an0YTfs=; b=QNo/35Ghwy8YrbjlXgzkAHbT/cPII4d+dbRzz6M5QgCONEZzVv4i22HTr0DlpocVo5 xICPO2gybcl3KRfqVUaUuK0sE6nUDCWkBkadKIwfFKW64NeHaCrXD9qDJZ8CTNlWpz76 BrRNTQVApfvC2WDSzqfOmyGX+GvHbKOg+VkQ/zKwMDdqiul6RpUYQYDXXt1XcAToOHKb rpyj3nDiGD4mBUVL5WQhaeigISa548GbKpH7BNG+IZ9fwBZJk76FIlNKMcCwWEPnGkKi Oar15uFLjplquq1ICMgFIvq0fXCm6qDuugtElMBHWqA3IMefdgrTRSssJ53Ewdua/jIC O//g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=pT7yG+ZIRuSsRQUlc7aUe2hsaluY9tnGkzf/an0YTfs=; b=VV4DW34Nn3L/yjgdPE2p5CT4RpvKsGTS+JvPig0C4Hv2t21Opi5tTWa2mtIcAwGov9 ongE13Ca+/+IshhTgPibQZ3T5aj0h6EHr0qjCKIvdWMGBapTJpbkeKEe+jbAwTFtDZ4w b+UtVzuuFQ8KRniQYZdWxLcog0KEWIrVP4ZhM59Fy07dzNhpqkRmkwCC8uZinD/Cm8vM PVdEajXWYfnTg/r0/yQAFSTzpc283urLoRVzsj7xlUonTqtoRoWi5pwalYUpH1vihM2P jSVmRMgtR5r+bk/vUN07POc3M7g15Hrasy3IWSh4nRaljLXiy4mCJsyM90ea9J9t5U2i FEIA== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukdqDAjeNSGMdMS4irz6ARJirquSggQfKRUIgWbRS1OeCYQsQbTU /pxzHaN3Trg1EuxeQt50qBNy419jn/GcgQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN6TDEU0e5rFft6bxXVKl7nJwiZQT49V6Iq6wF0MbBWLiTObGoKxAiSgFOloFvw7//bUBQkAew== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:cf0d:: with SMTP id f13mr620495wmg.70.1548097989996; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 11:13:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from brauner.io (p200300EA6F1466E194736B39AFAF14D4.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [2003:ea:6f14:66e1:9473:6b39:afaf:14d4]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x10sm116951978wrn.29.2019.01.21.11.13.09 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 21 Jan 2019 11:13:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 20:13:07 +0100 From: Christian Brauner To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the y2038 tree Message-ID: <20190121191306.ifga5aw5atu2vvb7@brauner.io> References: <20190121143951.68956db3@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 06:16:22PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:40 AM Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the pidfd tree got conflicts in: > > > > arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl > > include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h > > > > between commit: > > > > 10a9a4dd92e6 ("arch: add split IPC system calls where needed") > > b1788424aa2e ("y2038: add 64-bit time_t syscalls to all 32-bit architectures") > > > > from the y2038 tree and commit: > > > > 3d2991bc7a67 ("signal: add pidfd_send_signal() syscall") > > > > from the pidfd tree. > > > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This > > is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial > > conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree > > is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating > > with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly > > complex conflicts. > > Hi Stephen, > > > +385 i386 io_pgetevents sys_io_pgetevents_time32 __ia32_compat_sys_io_pgetevents > > 386 i386 rseq sys_rseq __ia32_sys_rseq > > + 387 i386 pidfd_send_signal sys_pidfd_send_signal __ia32_sys_pidfd_send_signal > > +# room for arch specific syscalls > > +393 i386 semget sys_semget __ia32_sys_semget > > +394 i386 semctl sys_semctl __ia32_compat_sys_semctl > > > #define __NR_kexec_file_load 294 > > __SYSCALL(__NR_kexec_file_load, sys_kexec_file_load) > > - /* 295 through 402 are unassigned to sync up with generic numbers */ > > + #define __NR_pidfd_send_signal 295 > > + __SYSCALL(__NR_pidfd_send_signal, sys_pidfd_send_signal) > > ++/* 296 through 402 are unassigned to sync up with generic numbers */ > > +#if __BITS_PER_LONG == 32 > > +#define __NR_clock_gettime64 403 > > +__SYSCALL(__NR_clock_gettime64, sys_clock_gettime) > > If we merge my patches, then any other system calls should get numbers > above 423 on all architectures. Part of what I did in my branch was to > add all missing calls on architectures, and then move up to a common > number for the newly added ones. Your merge works correctly, but > it works against that idea by adding new numbers that conflict with > existing ones on other architectures, e.g. 387 is already assigned > on arm, microblaze, powerpc, and sh, and 294 is assigned almost > everywhere other than the asm-generic version. Hey Arnd, 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? Christian