Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the asm-generic tree

[Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>]

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