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

[Peter Zijlstra]

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?