From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the y2038 tree
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 15:44:17 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <da262bd9-1de0-eabb-ee44-e0ee152d15bb@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190121202328.rgrv54lybilsvitu@brauner.io>
On 1/21/19 1:23 PM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 09:15:27PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 8:13 PM Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io> 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 <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> 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?
I'm fine with either one, I'll have to renumber in any case. But it's 3
new syscalls (424, 425, 426), not 4.
Arnd, what's the best way to make this switch now, in my tree? Would be
great if I didn't have to change it again once I make the change.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-21 22:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-21 3:39 linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the y2038 tree Stephen Rothwell
2019-01-21 17:16 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-01-21 19:13 ` Christian Brauner
2019-01-21 20:15 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-01-21 20:23 ` Christian Brauner
2019-01-21 22:44 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2019-01-21 22:48 ` Christian Brauner
2019-01-22 9:26 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-01-22 9:31 ` Christian Brauner
2019-01-22 10:30 ` Christian Brauner
2019-01-22 10:48 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-01-22 10:57 ` Christian Brauner
2019-01-22 11:42 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-01-22 11:46 ` Christian Brauner
2019-01-22 12:24 ` Christian Brauner
2019-01-22 13:44 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-01-22 3:10 Stephen Rothwell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=da262bd9-1de0-eabb-ee44-e0ee152d15bb@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=christian@brauner.io \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).