On 10/11/23 3:32 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 10:21:06AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> On 10/9/23 8:16 AM, 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: >>>>>> 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. >>> >>> Peter, what's the verdict - do you want to rebase it, or leave it as-is? >> >> Ah, I looked into doing this, but tip/locking/core has since grown a >> bunch of patches and has a merge commit -- I talked to Ingo yesterday >> and he proposed just queueing a fix on top instead of doing a full >> rebase. >> >> Ingo, that still your preferred solution? > > Yeah, that would be the best solution IMO - it's not like there's any real > prospect of someone bisecting futex2 patch-enablement commits on Alpha ... > and the bisection distance isn't particularly large either in any case. OK, works for me. I'll keep my branch as-is, and just ensure it gets sent out after locking/core has been pulled by Linus. -- Jens Axboe
