On 10/9/23 8:13 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > 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) >From my point of view, this isn't a huge problem if we do it now. The io_uring-futex branch is a separate branch and I have nothing on top of it, so I could easily just re-pull your updated branch and rebase my changes on top. > Or do we want to keep this fixup in the merge resolution and make sure > Linus is aware? If you're OK with it, I'd say let's rebase and save ourselves the trouble at merge time. -- Jens Axboe
