Messages in this thread | | | From | Arnd Bergmann <> | Date | Mon, 21 Jan 2019 21:15:27 +0100 | Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the y2038 tree |
| |
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 io_uring on all architectures, we can hopefully avoid the renumbering. Of course, if one or more of the patch series don't make it in or see a rework that changes the number of new syscalls, then we may have to change the numbers after all, but we can always hope ;-)
Arnd
| |