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 44E03C37121 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 20:23:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0234520844 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 20:23:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=brauner.io header.i=@brauner.io header.b="Ay0TVwke" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728011AbfAUUXf (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jan 2019 15:23:35 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-f67.google.com ([209.85.128.67]:53717 "EHLO mail-wm1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726575AbfAUUXd (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jan 2019 15:23:33 -0500 Received: by mail-wm1-f67.google.com with SMTP id d15so12054480wmb.3 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 12:23:31 -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=rnfi6FhOzAfyBxqYRd6zljSxPBFdBOX6GJFmQN4hMhU=; b=Ay0TVwke7xtwJhAzANL3INYkZ7/yq2ix7aOJ5INJjDsGn8KfH18JOzHkafqaw1ZRSB /l8T5Xe2ZEOiTeACvCQrYo8R/i5vrcN0Q+ihvPsbfu2T3Yilf4ccD57jrnIHheTKjS2D kMxAhlYxo/WHDbSDt9e8YBMx3cDOgVM4vcerUKkE5wQXJUNW6ptgmFwR5+7NSzorV7Rh 3vr9Ix5dVaGouRe2RPvLBQgPnIYslpLK4p/tNO4fUG1XEpFu6DV4Lg/KPNx3ByTrGW1l WBwEZPW1WvA+RbPPWzuYiGfO62o2kwLk4DVX62eHElaR16Jm1yZWMIGIAkv+lVpdnFrT L6CQ== 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=rnfi6FhOzAfyBxqYRd6zljSxPBFdBOX6GJFmQN4hMhU=; b=U1c8hyshKvZpIbN4Hkqk9hfUNnMRYmeuh1j1MWVLdsieU3/nifkGaZLcDhMrsJ6T9i Xy3s1+ut1H+zYpRAUdlpqLlw7qsBlPphnKS4D7UxaCrAlb+RSBM4pOpf0SF+rXcLmCXu azosyFXU0MGo5TIOUSp3m35IkkrGEWBl+U1T9glT+8ewN/Gc3WqcrtI1B8D36SJEslNq aoJgJwUDFEueCtY8ewjYN4KAZh0uzp4BDk49IBq+AvJDhvr2WHlujOlY6f56iFtvs2g7 VK/Wd4EDsvvsX4xqg4P9MKAAtxnK0CACFUszzWBCHcyz5QHffyGuPUhwGidodf1MQGz9 XSsA== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukdaIQSqI6UYm8bhNPjqacbpfdWbsVzpwrb25cKbxNFByhW6lDcu pqN905nbztwj+ERizeO37xFnvA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN6otZVk7Ia5C2oYRefCZ07cY1dejrVEEVSjpSh6bnHuTz0DiwdqdJMQvzAKdUNs3CeSN/JmTQ== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:b10a:: with SMTP id a10mr783797wmf.148.1548102211189; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 12:23:31 -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 c1sm40828045wmb.14.2019.01.21.12.23.30 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 21 Jan 2019 12:23:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 21:23:29 +0100 From: Christian Brauner To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-arch , Jens Axboe Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the y2038 tree Message-ID: <20190121202328.rgrv54lybilsvitu@brauner.io> References: <20190121143951.68956db3@canb.auug.org.au> <20190121191306.ifga5aw5atu2vvb7@brauner.io> 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 09:15:27PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 8:13 PM Christian Brauner wrote: > > 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: > > > > 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? > > A conflict can't be avoided, but if you pick system call number 427 > for pidfd_send_signal, and Jens picks numbers 424 through 426 for That sounds good to me. Since it's only one syscall for the pidfd branch is there anything that speaks against me using 424? Given that the other patchset has 4 new syscalls. :) Jens, any objections? Christian