On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:31:46AM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:26:56AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 11:48 PM Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 03:44:17PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > On 1/21/19 1:23 PM, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 09:15:27PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > >> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 8:13 PM Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > >>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 06:16:22PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > >>>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:40 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I plan on sending the pidfd branch with the new pidfd_send_signal() > > > > >>> syscall for the 5.1 window. Should we somehow coordinate so that our > > > > >>> branches don't conflict? Any suggestions? > > > > >> > > > > >> A conflict can't be avoided, but if you pick system call number 427 > > > > >> for pidfd_send_signal, and Jens picks numbers 424 through 426 for > > > > > > > > > > That sounds good to me. Since it's only one syscall for the pidfd branch > > > > > is there anything that speaks against me using 424? Given that the other > > > > > patchset has 4 new syscalls. :) > > > > > Jens, any objections? > > > > > > > > I'm fine with either one, I'll have to renumber in any case. But it's 3 > > > > new syscalls (424, 425, 426), not 4. > > > > > > > > Arnd, what's the best way to make this switch now, in my tree? Would be > > > > > > Yeah, I'd like to know that as well. > > > > > > > great if I didn't have to change it again once I make the change. > > > > I'd suggest that you each just take the numbers we talked about and > > add them in your respective git trees, at the end of the current tables. What should we do about unistd.h? We can't just bump that to 42*, right? Christian
