From: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner•io>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb•de>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb•auug.org.au>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger•kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger•kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger•kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel•dk>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the y2038 tree
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 21:23:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190121202328.rgrv54lybilsvitu@brauner.io> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a2CkXJ=giXQgxEcQAeH1Wt8jKc_P+YTOLJpUPVKYU8m9g@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 09:15:27PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 8:13 PM Christian Brauner <christian@brauner•io> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 06:16:22PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:40 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb•auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > I plan on sending the pidfd branch with the new pidfd_send_signal()
> > syscall for the 5.1 window. Should we somehow coordinate so that our
> > branches don't conflict? Any suggestions?
>
> A conflict can't be avoided, but if you pick system call number 427
> for pidfd_send_signal, and Jens picks numbers 424 through 426 for
That sounds good to me. Since it's only one syscall for the pidfd branch
is there anything that speaks against me using 424? Given that the other
patchset has 4 new syscalls. :)
Jens, any objections?
Christian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-21 20:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-21 3:39 linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the y2038 tree Stephen Rothwell
2019-01-21 17:16 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-01-21 19:13 ` Christian Brauner
2019-01-21 20:15 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-01-21 20:23 ` Christian Brauner [this message]
2019-01-21 22:44 ` Jens Axboe
2019-01-21 22:48 ` Christian Brauner
2019-01-22 9:26 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-01-22 9:31 ` Christian Brauner
2019-01-22 10:30 ` Christian Brauner
2019-01-22 10:48 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-01-22 10:57 ` Christian Brauner
2019-01-22 11:42 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-01-22 11:46 ` Christian Brauner
2019-01-22 12:24 ` Christian Brauner
2019-01-22 13:44 ` Arnd Bergmann
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-01-22 3:10 Stephen Rothwell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190121202328.rgrv54lybilsvitu@brauner.io \
--to=christian@brauner$(echo .)io \
--cc=arnd@arndb$(echo .)de \
--cc=axboe@kernel$(echo .)dk \
--cc=linux-arch@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=sfr@canb$(echo .)auug.org.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox