* linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the asm-generic tree
@ 2023-10-09 1:31 Stephen Rothwell
2023-10-09 8:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-10-31 22:21 ` Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2023-10-09 1:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe, Arnd Bergmann
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux Next Mailing List,
Peter Zijlstra, Sohil Mehta
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 11152 bytes --]
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got conflicts in:
arch/alpha/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
arch/arm/tools/syscall.tbl
arch/arm64/include/asm/unistd.h
arch/arm64/include/asm/unistd32.h
arch/m68k/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
arch/microblaze/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
arch/mips/kernel/syscalls/syscall_n32.tbl
arch/mips/kernel/syscalls/syscall_n64.tbl
arch/mips/kernel/syscalls/syscall_o32.tbl
arch/parisc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
arch/powerpc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
arch/s390/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
arch/sh/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
arch/sparc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl
arch/xtensa/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
between commits:
2fd0ebad27bc ("arch: Reserve map_shadow_stack() syscall number for all architectures")
from the asm-generic tree and commits:
9f6c532f59b2 ("futex: Add sys_futex_wake()")
cb8c4312afca ("futex: Add sys_futex_wait()")
0f4b5f972216 ("futex: Add sys_futex_requeue()")
from the block 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.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
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
diff --cc arch/arm/tools/syscall.tbl
index 45ec6e1dc872,93d0d46cbb15..000000000000
--- a/arch/arm/tools/syscall.tbl
+++ b/arch/arm/tools/syscall.tbl
@@@ -466,4 -466,6 +466,7 @@@
450 common set_mempolicy_home_node sys_set_mempolicy_home_node
451 common cachestat sys_cachestat
452 common fchmodat2 sys_fchmodat2
+453 common map_shadow_stack sys_map_shadow_stack
+ 454 common futex_wake sys_futex_wake
+ 455 common futex_wait sys_futex_wait
+ 456 common futex_requeue sys_futex_requeue
diff --cc arch/arm64/include/asm/unistd.h
index 6a28fb91b85d,531effca5f1f..000000000000
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/unistd.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/unistd.h
diff --cc arch/arm64/include/asm/unistd32.h
index 0774d9cbe563,c453291154fd..000000000000
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/unistd32.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/unistd32.h
@@@ -911,8 -911,12 +911,14 @@@ __SYSCALL(__NR_set_mempolicy_home_node
__SYSCALL(__NR_cachestat, sys_cachestat)
#define __NR_fchmodat2 452
__SYSCALL(__NR_fchmodat2, sys_fchmodat2)
+#define __NR_map_shadow_stack 453
+__SYSCALL(__NR_map_shadow_stack, sys_map_shadow_stack)
+ #define __NR_futex_wake 454
+ __SYSCALL(__NR_futex_wake, sys_futex_wake)
+ #define __NR_futex_wait 455
+ __SYSCALL(__NR_futex_wait, sys_futex_wait)
+ #define __NR_futex_requeue 456
+ __SYSCALL(__NR_futex_requeue, sys_futex_requeue)
/*
* Please add new compat syscalls above this comment and update
diff --cc arch/m68k/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
index 12d0ce43b094,f7f997a88bab..000000000000
--- a/arch/m68k/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
+++ b/arch/m68k/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
@@@ -452,4 -452,6 +452,7 @@@
450 common set_mempolicy_home_node sys_set_mempolicy_home_node
451 common cachestat sys_cachestat
452 common fchmodat2 sys_fchmodat2
+453 common map_shadow_stack sys_map_shadow_stack
+ 454 common futex_wake sys_futex_wake
+ 455 common futex_wait sys_futex_wait
+ 456 common futex_requeue sys_futex_requeue
diff --cc arch/microblaze/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
index de8219c4300c,2967ec26b978..000000000000
--- a/arch/microblaze/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
+++ b/arch/microblaze/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
@@@ -458,4 -458,6 +458,7 @@@
450 common set_mempolicy_home_node sys_set_mempolicy_home_node
451 common cachestat sys_cachestat
452 common fchmodat2 sys_fchmodat2
+453 common map_shadow_stack sys_map_shadow_stack
+ 454 common futex_wake sys_futex_wake
+ 455 common futex_wait sys_futex_wait
+ 456 common futex_requeue sys_futex_requeue
diff --cc arch/mips/kernel/syscalls/syscall_n32.tbl
index a5096a064fb4,383abb1713f4..000000000000
--- a/arch/mips/kernel/syscalls/syscall_n32.tbl
+++ b/arch/mips/kernel/syscalls/syscall_n32.tbl
@@@ -391,4 -391,6 +391,7 @@@
450 n32 set_mempolicy_home_node sys_set_mempolicy_home_node
451 n32 cachestat sys_cachestat
452 n32 fchmodat2 sys_fchmodat2
+453 n32 map_shadow_stack sys_map_shadow_stack
+ 454 n32 futex_wake sys_futex_wake
+ 455 n32 futex_wait sys_futex_wait
+ 456 n32 futex_requeue sys_futex_requeue
diff --cc arch/mips/kernel/syscalls/syscall_n64.tbl
index 0044031d9c70,c9bd09ba905f..000000000000
--- a/arch/mips/kernel/syscalls/syscall_n64.tbl
+++ b/arch/mips/kernel/syscalls/syscall_n64.tbl
@@@ -367,4 -367,6 +367,7 @@@
450 common set_mempolicy_home_node sys_set_mempolicy_home_node
451 n64 cachestat sys_cachestat
452 n64 fchmodat2 sys_fchmodat2
+453 n64 map_shadow_stack sys_map_shadow_stack
+ 454 n64 futex_wake sys_futex_wake
+ 455 n64 futex_wait sys_futex_wait
+ 456 n64 futex_requeue sys_futex_requeue
diff --cc arch/mips/kernel/syscalls/syscall_o32.tbl
index cf44a6ac38fa,ba5ef6cea97a..000000000000
--- a/arch/mips/kernel/syscalls/syscall_o32.tbl
+++ b/arch/mips/kernel/syscalls/syscall_o32.tbl
@@@ -440,4 -440,6 +440,7 @@@
450 o32 set_mempolicy_home_node sys_set_mempolicy_home_node
451 o32 cachestat sys_cachestat
452 o32 fchmodat2 sys_fchmodat2
+453 o32 map_shadow_stack sys_map_shadow_stack
+ 454 o32 futex_wake sys_futex_wake
+ 455 o32 futex_wait sys_futex_wait
+ 456 o32 futex_requeue sys_futex_requeue
diff --cc arch/parisc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
index 4048ed480a04,9f0f6df55361..000000000000
--- a/arch/parisc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
+++ b/arch/parisc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
@@@ -451,4 -451,6 +451,7 @@@
450 common set_mempolicy_home_node sys_set_mempolicy_home_node
451 common cachestat sys_cachestat
452 common fchmodat2 sys_fchmodat2
+453 common map_shadow_stack sys_map_shadow_stack
+ 454 common futex_wake sys_futex_wake
+ 455 common futex_wait sys_futex_wait
+ 456 common futex_requeue sys_futex_requeue
diff --cc arch/powerpc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
index d845e14c38f3,26fc41904266..000000000000
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
@@@ -539,4 -539,6 +539,7 @@@
450 nospu set_mempolicy_home_node sys_set_mempolicy_home_node
451 common cachestat sys_cachestat
452 common fchmodat2 sys_fchmodat2
+453 common map_shadow_stack sys_ni_syscall
+ 454 common futex_wake sys_futex_wake
+ 455 common futex_wait sys_futex_wait
+ 456 common futex_requeue sys_futex_requeue
diff --cc arch/s390/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
index 416645f1c1fb,31be90b241f7..000000000000
--- a/arch/s390/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
+++ b/arch/s390/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
@@@ -455,4 -455,6 +455,7 @@@
450 common set_mempolicy_home_node sys_set_mempolicy_home_node sys_set_mempolicy_home_node
451 common cachestat sys_cachestat sys_cachestat
452 common fchmodat2 sys_fchmodat2 sys_fchmodat2
+453 common map_shadow_stack sys_map_shadow_stack sys_map_shadow_stack
+ 454 common futex_wake sys_futex_wake sys_futex_wake
+ 455 common futex_wait sys_futex_wait sys_futex_wait
+ 456 common futex_requeue sys_futex_requeue sys_futex_requeue
diff --cc arch/sh/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
index bf36587b87b5,4bc5d488ab17..000000000000
--- a/arch/sh/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
+++ b/arch/sh/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
@@@ -455,4 -455,6 +455,7 @@@
450 common set_mempolicy_home_node sys_set_mempolicy_home_node
451 common cachestat sys_cachestat
452 common fchmodat2 sys_fchmodat2
+453 common map_shadow_stack sys_map_shadow_stack
+ 454 common futex_wake sys_futex_wake
+ 455 common futex_wait sys_futex_wait
+ 456 common futex_requeue sys_futex_requeue
diff --cc arch/sparc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
index f45f8c5ed076,8404c8e50394..000000000000
--- a/arch/sparc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
+++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
@@@ -498,4 -498,6 +498,7 @@@
450 common set_mempolicy_home_node sys_set_mempolicy_home_node
451 common cachestat sys_cachestat
452 common fchmodat2 sys_fchmodat2
+453 common map_shadow_stack sys_map_shadow_stack
+ 454 common futex_wake sys_futex_wake
+ 455 common futex_wait sys_futex_wait
+ 456 common futex_requeue sys_futex_requeue
diff --cc arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl
index 54748f6d7c45,31c48bc2c3d8..000000000000
--- a/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl
+++ b/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl
@@@ -457,4 -457,6 +457,7 @@@
450 i386 set_mempolicy_home_node sys_set_mempolicy_home_node
451 i386 cachestat sys_cachestat
452 i386 fchmodat2 sys_fchmodat2
+453 i386 map_shadow_stack sys_map_shadow_stack
+ 454 i386 futex_wake sys_futex_wake
+ 455 i386 futex_wait sys_futex_wait
+ 456 i386 futex_requeue sys_futex_requeue
diff --cc arch/xtensa/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
index 10a7eecbedf0,dd71ecce8b86..000000000000
--- a/arch/xtensa/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
+++ b/arch/xtensa/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
@@@ -423,4 -423,6 +423,7 @@@
450 common set_mempolicy_home_node sys_set_mempolicy_home_node
451 common cachestat sys_cachestat
452 common fchmodat2 sys_fchmodat2
+453 common map_shadow_stack sys_map_shadow_stack
+ 454 common futex_wake sys_futex_wake
+ 455 common futex_wait sys_futex_wait
+ 456 common futex_requeue sys_futex_requeue
diff --cc include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
index 00df5af71ca1,d9e9cd13e577..000000000000
--- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
+++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
@@@ -822,12 -822,15 +822,18 @@@ __SYSCALL(__NR_cachestat, sys_cachestat
#define __NR_fchmodat2 452
__SYSCALL(__NR_fchmodat2, sys_fchmodat2)
+ #define __NR_futex_wake 454
+ __SYSCALL(__NR_futex_wake, sys_futex_wake)
+ #define __NR_futex_wait 455
+ __SYSCALL(__NR_futex_wait, sys_futex_wait)
+ #define __NR_futex_requeue 456
+ __SYSCALL(__NR_futex_requeue, sys_futex_requeue)
+#define __NR_map_shadow_stack 453
+__SYSCALL(__NR_map_shadow_stack, sys_map_shadow_stack)
+
#undef __NR_syscalls
- #define __NR_syscalls 454
+ #define __NR_syscalls 457
/*
* 32 bit systems traditionally used different
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the asm-generic tree
2023-10-09 1:31 linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the asm-generic tree Stephen Rothwell
@ 2023-10-09 8:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-10-09 9:00 ` Arnd Bergmann
2023-10-09 9:33 ` Stephen Rothwell
2023-10-31 22:21 ` Stephen Rothwell
1 sibling, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2023-10-09 8:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell
Cc: Jens Axboe, Arnd Bergmann, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
Linux Next Mailing List, Sohil Mehta
On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 12:31:18PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got conflicts in:
>
> arch/alpha/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> arch/arm/tools/syscall.tbl
> arch/arm64/include/asm/unistd.h
> arch/arm64/include/asm/unistd32.h
> arch/m68k/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> arch/microblaze/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> arch/mips/kernel/syscalls/syscall_n32.tbl
> arch/mips/kernel/syscalls/syscall_n64.tbl
> arch/mips/kernel/syscalls/syscall_o32.tbl
> arch/parisc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> arch/powerpc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> arch/s390/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> arch/sh/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> arch/sparc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl
> arch/xtensa/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
>
> between commits:
>
> 2fd0ebad27bc ("arch: Reserve map_shadow_stack() syscall number for all architectures")
>
> from the asm-generic tree and commits:
>
> 9f6c532f59b2 ("futex: Add sys_futex_wake()")
> cb8c4312afca ("futex: Add sys_futex_wait()")
> 0f4b5f972216 ("futex: Add sys_futex_requeue()")
>
> from the block tree.
fun fun fun..
> 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.
> diff --cc include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
> index 00df5af71ca1,d9e9cd13e577..000000000000
> --- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
> @@@ -822,12 -822,15 +822,18 @@@ __SYSCALL(__NR_cachestat, sys_cachestat
>
> #define __NR_fchmodat2 452
> __SYSCALL(__NR_fchmodat2, sys_fchmodat2)
> + #define __NR_futex_wake 454
> + __SYSCALL(__NR_futex_wake, sys_futex_wake)
> + #define __NR_futex_wait 455
> + __SYSCALL(__NR_futex_wait, sys_futex_wait)
> + #define __NR_futex_requeue 456
> + __SYSCALL(__NR_futex_requeue, sys_futex_requeue)
>
> +#define __NR_map_shadow_stack 453
> +__SYSCALL(__NR_map_shadow_stack, sys_map_shadow_stack)
> +
> #undef __NR_syscalls
> - #define __NR_syscalls 454
> + #define __NR_syscalls 457
>
> /*
> * 32 bit systems traditionally used different
This seems to have the hunks in the wrong order, 453 should come before
454 no?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the asm-generic tree
2023-10-09 8:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
@ 2023-10-09 9:00 ` Arnd Bergmann
2023-10-09 14:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-10-09 9:33 ` Stephen Rothwell
1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2023-10-09 9:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Zijlstra, Stephen Rothwell
Cc: Jens Axboe, Linux Kernel Mailing List, linux-next, Sohil Mehta
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.
Arnd
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the asm-generic tree
2023-10-09 8:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-10-09 9:00 ` Arnd Bergmann
@ 2023-10-09 9:33 ` Stephen Rothwell
1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2023-10-09 9:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Stephen Rothwell, Jens Axboe, Arnd Bergmann,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux Next Mailing List, Sohil Mehta
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 876 bytes --]
Hi Peter,
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 10:48:12 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > #define __NR_fchmodat2 452
> > __SYSCALL(__NR_fchmodat2, sys_fchmodat2)
> > + #define __NR_futex_wake 454
> > + __SYSCALL(__NR_futex_wake, sys_futex_wake)
> > + #define __NR_futex_wait 455
> > + __SYSCALL(__NR_futex_wait, sys_futex_wait)
> > + #define __NR_futex_requeue 456
> > + __SYSCALL(__NR_futex_requeue, sys_futex_requeue)
> >
> > +#define __NR_map_shadow_stack 453
> > +__SYSCALL(__NR_map_shadow_stack, sys_map_shadow_stack)
> > +
> > #undef __NR_syscalls
> > - #define __NR_syscalls 454
> > + #define __NR_syscalls 457
> >
> > /*
> > * 32 bit systems traditionally used different
>
> This seems to have the hunks in the wrong order, 453 should come before
> 454 no?
Oops, fixed thanks.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the asm-generic tree
2023-10-09 9:00 ` Arnd Bergmann
@ 2023-10-09 14:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-10-09 14:16 ` Jens Axboe
0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2023-10-09 14:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arnd Bergmann
Cc: Stephen Rothwell, Jens Axboe, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
linux-next, Sohil Mehta
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?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the asm-generic tree
2023-10-09 14:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
@ 2023-10-09 14:16 ` Jens Axboe
2023-10-09 14:21 ` Arnd Bergmann
2023-10-11 16:21 ` Jens Axboe
0 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Jens Axboe @ 2023-10-09 14:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Zijlstra, Arnd Bergmann
Cc: Stephen Rothwell, Linux Kernel Mailing List, linux-next, Sohil Mehta
On 10/9/23 8:13 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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)
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.
--
Jens Axboe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the asm-generic tree
2023-10-09 14:16 ` Jens Axboe
@ 2023-10-09 14:21 ` Arnd Bergmann
2023-10-11 16:21 ` Jens Axboe
1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2023-10-09 14:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe, Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Stephen Rothwell, Linux Kernel Mailing List, linux-next, Sohil Mehta
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the asm-generic tree
2023-10-09 14:16 ` Jens Axboe
2023-10-09 14:21 ` Arnd Bergmann
@ 2023-10-11 16:21 ` Jens Axboe
2023-10-11 17:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Jens Axboe @ 2023-10-11 16:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Zijlstra, Arnd Bergmann
Cc: Stephen Rothwell, Linux Kernel Mailing List, linux-next, Sohil Mehta
On 10/9/23 8:16 AM, 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:
>>> 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)
>
> 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.
Peter, what's the verdict - do you want to rebase it, or leave it as-is?
--
Jens Axboe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the asm-generic tree
2023-10-11 16:21 ` Jens Axboe
@ 2023-10-11 17:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-10-11 21:32 ` Ingo Molnar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2023-10-11 17:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe, Ingo Molnar
Cc: Arnd Bergmann, Stephen Rothwell, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
linux-next, Sohil Mehta
On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 10:21:06AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/9/23 8:16 AM, 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:
> >>> 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)
> >
> > 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.
>
> Peter, what's the verdict - do you want to rebase it, or leave it as-is?
Ah, I looked into doing this, but tip/locking/core has since grown a
bunch of patches and has a merge commit -- I talked to Ingo yesterday
and he proposed just queueing a fix on top instead of doing a full
rebase.
Ingo, that still your preferred solution?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the asm-generic tree
2023-10-11 17:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
@ 2023-10-11 21:32 ` Ingo Molnar
2023-10-11 21:42 ` Jens Axboe
0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Ingo Molnar @ 2023-10-11 21:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Jens Axboe, Arnd Bergmann, Stephen Rothwell,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, linux-next, Sohil Mehta
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 10:21:06AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 10/9/23 8:16 AM, 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:
> > >>> 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)
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Peter, what's the verdict - do you want to rebase it, or leave it as-is?
>
> Ah, I looked into doing this, but tip/locking/core has since grown a
> bunch of patches and has a merge commit -- I talked to Ingo yesterday
> and he proposed just queueing a fix on top instead of doing a full
> rebase.
>
> Ingo, that still your preferred solution?
Yeah, that would be the best solution IMO - it's not like there's any real
prospect of someone bisecting futex2 patch-enablement commits on Alpha ...
and the bisection distance isn't particularly large either in any case.
[ This would also document the very real historic conflict between these
numbers, as it happened. ]
Thanks,
Ingo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the asm-generic tree
2023-10-11 21:32 ` Ingo Molnar
@ 2023-10-11 21:42 ` Jens Axboe
2023-10-11 22:01 ` Ingo Molnar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Jens Axboe @ 2023-10-11 21:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ingo Molnar, Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Arnd Bergmann, Stephen Rothwell, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
linux-next, Sohil Mehta
On 10/11/23 3:32 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 10:21:06AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 10/9/23 8:16 AM, 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:
>>>>>> 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)
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Peter, what's the verdict - do you want to rebase it, or leave it as-is?
>>
>> Ah, I looked into doing this, but tip/locking/core has since grown a
>> bunch of patches and has a merge commit -- I talked to Ingo yesterday
>> and he proposed just queueing a fix on top instead of doing a full
>> rebase.
>>
>> Ingo, that still your preferred solution?
>
> Yeah, that would be the best solution IMO - it's not like there's any real
> prospect of someone bisecting futex2 patch-enablement commits on Alpha ...
> and the bisection distance isn't particularly large either in any case.
OK, works for me. I'll keep my branch as-is, and just ensure it gets
sent out after locking/core has been pulled by Linus.
--
Jens Axboe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the asm-generic tree
2023-10-11 21:42 ` Jens Axboe
@ 2023-10-11 22:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2023-10-16 11:53 ` Ingo Molnar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Ingo Molnar @ 2023-10-11 22:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe
Cc: Peter Zijlstra, Arnd Bergmann, Stephen Rothwell,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, linux-next, Sohil Mehta
* Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> >>> Peter, what's the verdict - do you want to rebase it, or leave it
> >>> as-is?
> >>
> >> Ah, I looked into doing this, but tip/locking/core has since grown a
> >> bunch of patches and has a merge commit -- I talked to Ingo yesterday
> >> and he proposed just queueing a fix on top instead of doing a full
> >> rebase.
> >>
> >> Ingo, that still your preferred solution?
> >
> > Yeah, that would be the best solution IMO - it's not like there's any
> > real prospect of someone bisecting futex2 patch-enablement commits on
> > Alpha ... and the bisection distance isn't particularly large either in
> > any case.
>
> OK, works for me. I'll keep my branch as-is, and just ensure it gets sent
> out after locking/core has been pulled by Linus.
Thank you!
Ingo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the asm-generic tree
2023-10-11 22:01 ` Ingo Molnar
@ 2023-10-16 11:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2023-10-17 1:12 ` Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Ingo Molnar @ 2023-10-16 11:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe
Cc: Peter Zijlstra, Arnd Bergmann, Stephen Rothwell,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, linux-next, Sohil Mehta
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> * Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>
> > >>> Peter, what's the verdict - do you want to rebase it, or leave it
> > >>> as-is?
> > >>
> > >> Ah, I looked into doing this, but tip/locking/core has since grown a
> > >> bunch of patches and has a merge commit -- I talked to Ingo yesterday
> > >> and he proposed just queueing a fix on top instead of doing a full
> > >> rebase.
> > >>
> > >> Ingo, that still your preferred solution?
> > >
> > > Yeah, that would be the best solution IMO - it's not like there's any
> > > real prospect of someone bisecting futex2 patch-enablement commits on
> > > Alpha ... and the bisection distance isn't particularly large either in
> > > any case.
> >
> > OK, works for me. I'll keep my branch as-is, and just ensure it gets sent
> > out after locking/core has been pulled by Linus.
>
> Thank you!
Heads-up: the futex syscall numbers are now fixed on Alpha in the locking
tree via:
dcc134510eef ("alpha: Fix up new futex syscall numbers")
This would, I presume, trigger a new conflict in -next, which should be
resolved in an identical fashion.
Jens, feel free to send your tree to Linus in any ordering with the
locking tree, there's no real dependency between them, and whoever
sends last should warn Linus about the known conflict.
Thanks,
Ingo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the asm-generic tree
2023-10-16 11:53 ` Ingo Molnar
@ 2023-10-17 1:12 ` Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2023-10-17 1:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ingo Molnar
Cc: Jens Axboe, Peter Zijlstra, Arnd Bergmann,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, linux-next, Sohil Mehta
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 423 bytes --]
Hi Ingo,
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 13:53:13 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Heads-up: the futex syscall numbers are now fixed on Alpha in the locking
> tree via:
>
> dcc134510eef ("alpha: Fix up new futex syscall numbers")
Thanks.
> This would, I presume, trigger a new conflict in -next, which should be
> resolved in an identical fashion.
Indeed, done.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the asm-generic tree
2023-10-09 1:31 linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the asm-generic tree Stephen Rothwell
2023-10-09 8:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
@ 2023-10-31 22:21 ` Stephen Rothwell
1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2023-10-31 22:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arnd Bergmann
Cc: Jens Axboe, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux Next Mailing List,
Peter Zijlstra, Sohil Mehta
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1353 bytes --]
Hi all,
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 12:31:18 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got conflicts in:
>
> arch/alpha/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> arch/arm/tools/syscall.tbl
> arch/arm64/include/asm/unistd.h
> arch/arm64/include/asm/unistd32.h
> arch/m68k/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> arch/microblaze/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> arch/mips/kernel/syscalls/syscall_n32.tbl
> arch/mips/kernel/syscalls/syscall_n64.tbl
> arch/mips/kernel/syscalls/syscall_o32.tbl
> arch/parisc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> arch/powerpc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> arch/s390/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> arch/sh/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> arch/sparc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl
> arch/xtensa/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
>
> between commits:
>
> 2fd0ebad27bc ("arch: Reserve map_shadow_stack() syscall number for all architectures")
>
> from the asm-generic tree and commits:
>
> 9f6c532f59b2 ("futex: Add sys_futex_wake()")
> cb8c4312afca ("futex: Add sys_futex_wait()")
> 0f4b5f972216 ("futex: Add sys_futex_requeue()")
>
> from the block tree.
This is now a conflict between the asm-generic tree and Linus' tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the asm-generic tree
2023-09-25 2:09 ` Stephen Rothwell
@ 2023-10-31 22:23 ` Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2023-10-31 22:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arnd Bergmann
Cc: Jens Axboe, Peter Zijlstra (Intel),
Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin, Ard Biesheuvel,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux Next Mailing List
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 901 bytes --]
Hi all,
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 12:09:08 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 12:05:44 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > arch/ia64/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > cf8e8658100d ("arch: Remove Itanium (IA-64) architecture")
> >
> > from the asm-generic tree and commits:
> >
> > 9f6c532f59b2 ("futex: Add sys_futex_wake()")
> > cb8c4312afca ("futex: Add sys_futex_wait()")
> > 0f4b5f972216 ("futex: Add sys_futex_requeue()")
> >
> > from the block tree.
>
> These three commits are also in the tip tree.
>
> > I fixed it up (I just removed the file) and can carry the fix as
> > necessary.
This is now a conflict between the asm-generic tree and Linus' tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the asm-generic tree
2023-09-25 2:05 Stephen Rothwell
@ 2023-09-25 2:09 ` Stephen Rothwell
2023-10-31 22:23 ` Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2023-09-25 2:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe, Arnd Bergmann, Peter Zijlstra (Intel),
Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux Next Mailing List
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1017 bytes --]
Hi all,
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 12:05:44 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/ia64/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
>
> between commit:
>
> cf8e8658100d ("arch: Remove Itanium (IA-64) architecture")
>
> from the asm-generic tree and commits:
>
> 9f6c532f59b2 ("futex: Add sys_futex_wake()")
> cb8c4312afca ("futex: Add sys_futex_wait()")
> 0f4b5f972216 ("futex: Add sys_futex_requeue()")
>
> from the block tree.
These three commits are also in the tip tree.
> I fixed it up (I just removed the file) 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.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the asm-generic tree
@ 2023-09-25 2:05 Stephen Rothwell
2023-09-25 2:09 ` Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2023-09-25 2:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe, Arnd Bergmann
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
Linux Next Mailing List, Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 840 bytes --]
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
arch/ia64/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
between commit:
cf8e8658100d ("arch: Remove Itanium (IA-64) architecture")
from the asm-generic tree and commits:
9f6c532f59b2 ("futex: Add sys_futex_wake()")
cb8c4312afca ("futex: Add sys_futex_wait()")
0f4b5f972216 ("futex: Add sys_futex_requeue()")
from the block tree.
I fixed it up (I just removed the file) 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.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-10-31 22:23 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-10-09 1:31 linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the asm-generic tree Stephen Rothwell
2023-10-09 8:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-10-09 9:00 ` Arnd Bergmann
2023-10-09 14:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-10-09 14:16 ` Jens Axboe
2023-10-09 14:21 ` Arnd Bergmann
2023-10-11 16:21 ` Jens Axboe
2023-10-11 17:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-10-11 21:32 ` Ingo Molnar
2023-10-11 21:42 ` Jens Axboe
2023-10-11 22:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2023-10-16 11:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2023-10-17 1:12 ` Stephen Rothwell
2023-10-09 9:33 ` Stephen Rothwell
2023-10-31 22:21 ` Stephen Rothwell
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2023-09-25 2:05 Stephen Rothwell
2023-09-25 2:09 ` Stephen Rothwell
2023-10-31 22:23 ` Stephen Rothwell
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).