From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] use struct pt_regs based syscall calling for x86-64 Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 13:03:54 +0200 Message-ID: <20180330110354.cnrtmjkk77hhbekt@gmail.com> References: <20180330093720.6780-1-linux@dominikbrodowski.net> <20180330101602.ongosnigfmdmgayb@gmail.com> <20180330104649.GB12688@light.dominikbrodowski.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180330104649.GB12688@light.dominikbrodowski.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Dominik Brodowski Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, arnd@arndb.de, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen , Andrew Morton , Andy Lutomirski , Brian Gerst , Denys Vlasenko , "H. Peter Anvin" , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , x86@kernel.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org * Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > > The whole series is available at > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brodo/linux.git syscalls-WIP > > > > BTW., I'd like all these bits to go through the x86 tree. > > > > What is the expected merge route of the generic preparatory bits? > > My current plan is to push the 109 patch bomb to remove in-kernel calls to syscalls > directly to Linus once v4.16 is released. Are there any (textual and semantic) conflicts with the latest -next? Also, to what extent were these 109 patches tested in -next? > For this series of seven patches, I am content with them going upstream through > the x86 tree (once that contains a backmerge of Linus' tree or the syscalls > tree, obviously). IMO, these seven patches should be kept together, and not > routed upstream through different channels. Of course they should stay together - the generic code impact is minimal, these are 95% x86. Thanks, Ingo From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f196.google.com ([209.85.128.196]:36162 "EHLO mail-wr0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750790AbeC3LD6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Mar 2018 07:03:58 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 13:03:54 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] use struct pt_regs based syscall calling for x86-64 Message-ID: <20180330110354.cnrtmjkk77hhbekt@gmail.com> References: <20180330093720.6780-1-linux@dominikbrodowski.net> <20180330101602.ongosnigfmdmgayb@gmail.com> <20180330104649.GB12688@light.dominikbrodowski.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180330104649.GB12688@light.dominikbrodowski.net> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Dominik Brodowski Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, arnd@arndb.de, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen , Andrew Morton , Andy Lutomirski , Brian Gerst , Denys Vlasenko , "H. Peter Anvin" , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , x86@kernel.org Message-ID: <20180330110354.FGzHJkOLcstTFoKJJamCMbGIc7-5VTbq5zfX3Aq0sbo@z> * Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > > The whole series is available at > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brodo/linux.git syscalls-WIP > > > > BTW., I'd like all these bits to go through the x86 tree. > > > > What is the expected merge route of the generic preparatory bits? > > My current plan is to push the 109 patch bomb to remove in-kernel calls to syscalls > directly to Linus once v4.16 is released. Are there any (textual and semantic) conflicts with the latest -next? Also, to what extent were these 109 patches tested in -next? > For this series of seven patches, I am content with them going upstream through > the x86 tree (once that contains a backmerge of Linus' tree or the syscalls > tree, obviously). IMO, these seven patches should be kept together, and not > routed upstream through different channels. Of course they should stay together - the generic code impact is minimal, these are 95% x86. Thanks, Ingo