On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 9:36 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:22 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 6:22 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:10:27 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > Today's linux-next merge of the pidfd tree got conflicts in:
> > > >
> > > > arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl
> > > > arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
> > > > include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
> > > >
> > > > between commits:
> > > >
> > > > 63a96220ad45 ("arch: add split IPC system calls where needed")
> > > > 0bd4bb9c5612 ("y2038: add 64-bit time_t syscalls to all 32-bit architectures")
> > > >
> > > > from the y2038 tree and commit:
> > > >
> > > > 3d2991bc7a67 ("signal: add pidfd_send_signal() syscall")
> > > >
> > > > from the pidfd tree.
> > >
> > > This is now a conflict between the block, tip and pidfd trees. The
> > > resolution now looks like below.
> >
> > Checked it again, still looks good. Thanks,
>
> What's the plan with adding new syscalls to all architectures?
>
> + <stdin>: warning: #warning syscall io_uring_enter not implemented
> [-Wcpp]: => 1481:2
> + <stdin>: warning: #warning syscall io_uring_register not
> implemented [-Wcpp]: => 1484:2
> + <stdin>: warning: #warning syscall io_uring_setup not implemented
> [-Wcpp]: => 1478:2
>
> and more seem to be planned for this merge window.
>
> Shall each architcture maintainer take care of this hxxself, or will
> this be done in
> a coordinated way?
I was planning to send a patch for all architectures this time
(after all three sets are merged, which is now), and ask future
submitters to do it themselves when first adding a new system
call.
Arnd
