On 2023-07-27, Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 02:43:41AM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote: > > On 2023-07-11, Alexey Gladkov <legion@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > This registers the new fchmodat2 syscall in most places as nuber 452, > > > with alpha being the exception where it's 562. I found all these sites > > > by grepping for fspick, which I assume has found me everything. > > > > Shouldn't this patch be squashed with the patch that adds the syscall? > > At least, that's how I've usually seen it done... > > Depends. Iirc, someone said they'd prefer for doing it in one patch > in some circumstances on some system call we added years ago. But otoh, > having the syscall wiring done separately makes it easy for arch > maintainers to ack only the wiring up part. Both ways are valid imho. > (cachestat() did it for x86 and then all the others separately. So > really it seems a bit all over the place depending on the scenario.) Fair enough! -- Aleksa Sarai Senior Software Engineer (Containers) SUSE Linux GmbH <https://www.cyphar.com/>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
