New syscalls (was: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the y2038 tree (now block and tip trees))

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Arnd,

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:22 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 6:22 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:10:27 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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?

  + <stdin>: warning: #warning syscall io_uring_enter not implemented
[-Wcpp]:  => 1481:2
  + <stdin>: warning: #warning syscall io_uring_register not
implemented [-Wcpp]:  => 1484:2
  + <stdin>: 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?

Thanks!

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds