On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 11:00:19AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Mon, Oct 9, 2023, at 10:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 12:31:18PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> diff --cc arch/alpha/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl > >> index 5d05ab716a74,b1865f9bb31e..000000000000 > >> --- a/arch/alpha/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl > >> +++ b/arch/alpha/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl > >> @@@ -492,4 -492,6 +492,7 @@@ > >> 560 common set_mempolicy_home_node sys_ni_syscall > >> 561 common cachestat sys_cachestat > >> 562 common fchmodat2 sys_fchmodat2 > >> -563 common futex_wake sys_futex_wake > >> -564 common futex_wait sys_futex_wait > >> -565 common futex_requeue sys_futex_requeue > >> +563 common map_shadow_stack sys_map_shadow_stack > >> ++564 common futex_wake sys_futex_wake > >> ++565 common futex_wait sys_futex_wait > >> ++566 common futex_requeue sys_futex_requeue > > > > So this renumbers the (futex) stuff on Alpha, does anybody care? AFAICT > > Alpha does not follow the unistd order and meh. > > 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) Or do we want to keep this fixup in the merge resolution and make sure Linus is aware?
