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

[Jens Axboe]

On 10/9/23 8:16 AM, 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:
>>> 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)
> 
> 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.

Peter, what's the verdict - do you want to rebase it, or leave it as-is?

-- 
Jens Axboe