From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christian Brauner Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the y2038 tree Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 21:23:29 +0100 Message-ID: <20190121202328.rgrv54lybilsvitu@brauner.io> References: <20190121143951.68956db3@canb.auug.org.au> <20190121191306.ifga5aw5atu2vvb7@brauner.io> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-arch , Jens Axboe List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 09:15:27PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 8:13 PM Christian Brauner wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 06:16:22PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:40 AM Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > I plan on sending the pidfd branch with the new pidfd_send_signal() > > syscall for the 5.1 window. Should we somehow coordinate so that our > > branches don't conflict? Any suggestions? > > A conflict can't be avoided, but if you pick system call number 427 > for pidfd_send_signal, and Jens picks numbers 424 through 426 for That sounds good to me. Since it's only one syscall for the pidfd branch is there anything that speaks against me using 424? Given that the other patchset has 4 new syscalls. :) Jens, any objections? Christian From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm1-f67.google.com ([209.85.128.67]:39355 "EHLO mail-wm1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727338AbfAUUXd (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jan 2019 15:23:33 -0500 Received: by mail-wm1-f67.google.com with SMTP id y8so12037812wmi.4 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 12:23:31 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 21:23:29 +0100 From: Christian Brauner Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the y2038 tree Message-ID: <20190121202328.rgrv54lybilsvitu@brauner.io> References: <20190121143951.68956db3@canb.auug.org.au> <20190121191306.ifga5aw5atu2vvb7@brauner.io> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-arch , Jens Axboe Message-ID: <20190121202329.CDB8BYALbqQ41OtGBx52N2om0j8xveVugsNF1cBl8l4@z> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 09:15:27PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 8:13 PM Christian Brauner wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 06:16:22PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:40 AM Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > I plan on sending the pidfd branch with the new pidfd_send_signal() > > syscall for the 5.1 window. Should we somehow coordinate so that our > > branches don't conflict? Any suggestions? > > A conflict can't be avoided, but if you pick system call number 427 > for pidfd_send_signal, and Jens picks numbers 424 through 426 for That sounds good to me. Since it's only one syscall for the pidfd branch is there anything that speaks against me using 424? Given that the other patchset has 4 new syscalls. :) Jens, any objections? Christian