linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the asm-generic tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <af82e327-5d80-4031-a1a7-a275bed8e248@app.fastmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 09 Oct 2023 16:21:54 +0200
From:   "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
To:     "Jens Axboe" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     "Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Sohil Mehta" <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the asm-generic tree

On Mon, Oct 9, 2023, at 16:16, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/9/23 8:13 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 11:00:19AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>
>>> Let's not make it worse for now. All the numbers since the
>>> introduction of the time64 syscalls are offset by exactly 120
>>> on alpha, and I'd prefer to keep it that way for the moment.
>>>
>>> I still hope to eventually finish the conversion of all architectures
>>> to a single syscall.tbl for numbers >400, and if that happens before
>>> the end of alpha, a different ordering would just be extra pain.
>> 
>> Fair enough; should we look at rebase those futex patches for this? (bit
>> of a pain as that would also mean rebasing block)
>
> From my point of view, this isn't a huge problem if we do it now. The
> io_uring-futex branch is a separate branch and I have nothing on top of
> it, so I could easily just re-pull your updated branch and rebase my
> changes on top.
>
>> Or do we want to keep this fixup in the merge resolution and make sure
>> Linus is aware?
>
> If you're OK with it, I'd say let's rebase and save ourselves the
> trouble at merge time.

Sounds good, thanks.

If it's any help, I can also merge the patches that wire up the
syscalls through the asm-generic tree to avoid the conflicts
altogether.

     Arnd