From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Metcalf Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the limits tree with the tile tree Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 00:18:33 -0400 Message-ID: <4C452399.3050708@tilera.com> References: <20100720134833.4082eed4.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100720134833.4082eed4.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Jiri Slaby , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On 7/19/2010 11:48 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Jiri, > > Today's linux-next merge of the limits tree got a conflict in > include/asm-generic/unistd.h between commits > 5360bd776f73d0a7da571d72a09a03f237e99900 ("Fix up the "generic" unistd.h > ABI to be more useful") and b51cae21ee66f77a368428e6bdf75a0c012c9fd7 > ("Add wait4() back to the set of syscalls") from > the tile tree and commit f33ebbe9da2c3c24664a0ad4f8fd83f293547e63 > ("unistd: add __NR_prlimit64 syscall numbers") from the limits tree. > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. > Jiri, would it be possible to put __NR_prlimit64 as number 261 in ? This would avoid the requirement for Tilera users to have a "flag day" to renumber some of our syscalls. I assume there are no users at all of this flavor of the __NR_prlimit64 syscall number yet otherwise, except the "score" architecture folks who presumably wouldn't have started trying to use the syscall yet. Thanks, and Stephen, thanks for the fixup. -- Chris Metcalf, Tilera Corp. http://www.tilera.com