From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:32:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1]:45851 "EHLO linux-mips.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S27011804AbbG3Oc4U6mhM (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:32:56 +0200 Received: from scotty.linux-mips.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by scotty.linux-mips.net (8.15.1/8.14.8) with ESMTP id t6UEWrA8014995; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:32:53 +0200 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by scotty.linux-mips.net (8.15.1/8.15.1/Submit) id t6UEWqUW014994; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:32:52 +0200 Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:32:52 +0200 From: Ralf Baechle To: Eric B Munson Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 6/6] mips: Add entry for new mlock2 syscall Message-ID: <20150730143252.GF25552@linux-mips.org> References: <1438184575-10537-1-git-send-email-emunson@akamai.com> <1438184575-10537-7-git-send-email-emunson@akamai.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1438184575-10537-7-git-send-email-emunson@akamai.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 48504 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: linux-mips X-List-ID: linux-mips List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: linux-mips On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11:42:55AM -0400, Eric B Munson wrote: > A previous commit introduced the new mlock2 syscall, add entries for the > MIPS architecture. Looking good, so Acked-by: Ralf Baechle Recently somebody else was floating around a patch that was adding three syscalls. Not sure if in the end the adding the syscall part to non-x86 was dropped. Just mentioning in case there are any conflicts; in particulary nobody should rely on syscall numbers unless they're for something in Linus' tree! Ralf