From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752593AbbG2Sqo (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 29 Jul 2015 14:46:44 -0400
Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:42052 "EHLO
	Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751820AbbG2Sqm (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 29 Jul 2015 14:46:42 -0400
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 20:46:10 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Eric B Munson <emunson@akamai.com>,
        "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip
 tree
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrX=hriW8sEjA1fV4et6HDFX9rMD94TdJd9pe07TkbRaqg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1507292045510.3825@nanos>
References: <20150728160015.142f588f@canb.auug.org.au> <20150729171256.GA10863@redhat.com> <CALCETrX=hriW8sEjA1fV4et6HDFX9rMD94TdJd9pe07TkbRaqg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0
X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: -
X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required,  ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 29 Jul 2015, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> 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 ....