On Mon, Oct 9, 2023, at 16:16, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 10/9/23 8:13 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 11:00:19AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> >>> 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. Sounds good, thanks. If it's any help, I can also merge the patches that wire up the syscalls through the asm-generic tree to avoid the conflicts altogether. Arnd