From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 20:46:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <20150728160015.142f588f@canb.auug.org.au> <20150729171256.GA10863@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , Stephen Rothwell , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Andy Lutomirski , Eric B Munson , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 29 Jul 2015, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > Hello Stephen, > > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 04:00:15PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> -359 i386 userfaultfd sys_userfaultfd > >> ++374 i386 userfaultfd sys_userfaultfd > > > > Do I understand correctly the syscall number of userfaultfd for x86 > > 32bit has just changed from 359 to 374? Appreciated that you CCed me > > on such a relevant change to be sure I didn't miss it. > > > > Then the below is needed as well. > > > > One related question: is it ok to ship kernels in production right now > > with the userfaultfd syscall number 374 for x86 32bit ABI (after the > > above change) and 323 for x86-64 64bit ABI, with these syscalls number > > registered in linux-next or it may keep changing like it has just > > happened? I refer only to userfaultfd syscalls of x86 32bit and x86-64 > > 64bit, not all other syscalls in linux-next. > > > > Of course, I know full well that the standard answer is no, and in > > fact the above is an expected and fine change. In other words what I'm > > really asking is if I wonder if I could get an agreement here that > > from now on, the syscall number of userfaultfd for x86 32bit and > > x86-64 64bit won't change anymore in linux-next and it's already > > reserved just like if it was already upstream. > > > > Again: I'd only seek such guarantee for the x86-64 64bit and x86 32bit > > ABIs (not any other arch, and not any other syscall). If I could get > > such a guarantee from you within the next week or two, that would > > avoid me complications and some work, so I thought it was worth > > asking. If it's not possible never mind. > > My (limited) understanding is that this is up to the arch maintainers. > I certainly didn't intend to preempt your syscall number, but my patch > beat your patch to -tip :-p > > -tip people: want to assign Andrea a pair of syscall numbers? Sure, just send a patch ....