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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS 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 61A29C43381 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 21:38:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31D7120657 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 21:38:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728318AbfCKVi0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Mar 2019 17:38:26 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-f194.google.com ([209.85.160.194]:45722 "EHLO mail-qt1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727008AbfCKViZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Mar 2019 17:38:25 -0400 Received: by mail-qt1-f194.google.com with SMTP id v20so264681qtv.12; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 14:38:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=HyUft/RqubZVWIHTJ99/NednP6Xtq8YIkptzcvyysyM=; b=Q8rttX4iE9gEa8lngjlmFo/sJjaP56NXSVmzma4c6wS4YS2FY5ATzRTPOcPL6o+qxW Nm2jWEB3qE8aTKUvgUjjEtuVvBcvmWNwqATTbPSvACjoJrV8flo/0UfefvUYZml4/N02 6Wpv1OQEtuwD5M9t0I9mQJ1/K97EzVGN/Akccc1NOKiwdpfMrkATdX/FmgT0SCQOGvu2 Gp+cC7SytxBq/1ZoOxKFY3askJ42hbgJ3FUdQDeB6WG3aIl6RIl0z0jMkU9ppvSOb2y5 Q00T4BH1UK43cQUyZ9I9/Qstb7CeUIr4JBevqFi1I5mh/9HxtL5fGPSJdtLoOnWm9sKf TiVw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWFemsVduEJHJJoesCJ0/Z0SWrLy8JHZph0Mj89fefTm6oETDhc ZXQzoL92E3yD1r/e+H9cHZbZlYopP6r6/DzjBJ/pww== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwzG69VXZlckmZjLkXe5InGQjVr40YinRF8xOI+j2t3NaEC+UJL+67reJ6cDQkZ69uOI8bKa2Tu9YYrq8VvgU4= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:1e17:: with SMTP id n23mr5436901qtl.152.1552340304772; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 14:38:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190122141027.70cd9166@canb.auug.org.au> <20190213162212.500a7cd5@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: From: Arnd Bergmann Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 22:38:07 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: New syscalls (was: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the y2038 tree (now block and tip trees)) To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Christian Brauner , Jens Axboe , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux-Arch Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 9:36 AM Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:22 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 6:22 AM Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:10:27 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the pidfd tree got conflicts in: > > > > > > > > arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl > > > > arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl > > > > include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h > > > > > > > > between commits: > > > > > > > > 63a96220ad45 ("arch: add split IPC system calls where needed") > > > > 0bd4bb9c5612 ("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. > > > > > > This is now a conflict between the block, tip and pidfd trees. The > > > resolution now looks like below. > > > > Checked it again, still looks good. Thanks, > > What's the plan with adding new syscalls to all architectures? > > + : warning: #warning syscall io_uring_enter not implemented > [-Wcpp]: => 1481:2 > + : warning: #warning syscall io_uring_register not > implemented [-Wcpp]: => 1484:2 > + : warning: #warning syscall io_uring_setup not implemented > [-Wcpp]: => 1478:2 > > and more seem to be planned for this merge window. > > Shall each architcture maintainer take care of this hxxself, or will > this be done in > a coordinated way? I was planning to send a patch for all architectures this time (after all three sets are merged, which is now), and ask future submitters to do it themselves when first adding a new system call. Arnd