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

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Mon, Oct 9, 2023, at 16:16, 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:
>>>
>>> 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.

Sounds good, thanks.

If it's any help, I can also merge the patches that wire up the
syscalls through the asm-generic tree to avoid the conflicts
altogether.

     Arnd