On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx> 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? --Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
