Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1220421 > unrolled thread

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip  tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2015-09-08 01:40 +0200
    Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-09-08 20:20 +0200
      Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip  tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2015-09-09 01:00 +0200
        Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-09-09 01:10 +0200
          Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip  tree Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-09-09 01:30 +0200
            Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> - 2015-09-16 09:00 +0200

#1220421 — Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi Linus,

On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 19:12:56 +0200 Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 04:00:15PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >  -359	i386	userfaultfd		sys_userfaultfd
> > ++374	i386	userfaultfd		sys_userfaultfd
> 
> Do I understand correctly the syscall number of userfaultfd for x86
> 32bit has just changed from 359 to 374? Appreciated that you CCed me
> on such a relevant change to be sure I didn't miss it.
> 
> Then the below is needed as well.

The below patch was missed when the userfaultfd stuff and the x86 changes
were merged.  I have repeated the patch in the clear below.

From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:53:17 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] userfaultfd: selftest: update userfaultfd x86 32bit syscall number

It changed as result of linux-next merge of other syscalls.

Signed-off-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
index 0c0b839..76071b1 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@
 #ifdef __x86_64__
 #define __NR_userfaultfd 323
 #elif defined(__i386__)
-#define __NR_userfaultfd 359
+#define __NR_userfaultfd 374
 #elif defined(__powewrpc__)
 #define __NR_userfaultfd 364
 #else

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1221026 — Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> The below patch was missed when the userfaultfd stuff and the x86 changes
> were merged.  I have repeated the patch in the clear below.

When forwarding patches, please add your sign-off. I can see (and
apply) the original in this thread, so I guess it doesn't matter in
this particular case, but in general that's what you should be doing
so that I don't then have to find the other email just to apply the
patch from the original author.

Also, this wasn't actually a real merge error. This was just a bug in
the whole process. Andrew's patches sent to me had been updated with
the right number for all the other cases, why hadn't this been folded
into the series too? Apparently Andrew's series has simply been buggy
for the last month or more, and that was true even before it was sent
to me and while it was cooking in -next.. Tssk.

            Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1221132

Hi Linus,

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 11:11:25 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > The below patch was missed when the userfaultfd stuff and the x86 changes
> > were merged.  I have repeated the patch in the clear below.
> 
> When forwarding patches, please add your sign-off. I can see (and
> apply) the original in this thread, so I guess it doesn't matter in
> this particular case, but in general that's what you should be doing
> so that I don't then have to find the other email just to apply the
> patch from the original author.

Ooops, sorry about that.  I really should know better.

> Also, this wasn't actually a real merge error. This was just a bug in
> the whole process. Andrew's patches sent to me had been updated with
> the right number for all the other cases, why hadn't this been folded
> into the series too? Apparently Andrew's series has simply been buggy
> for the last month or more, and that was true even before it was sent
> to me and while it was cooking in -next.. Tssk.

I have been applying that patch I sent to you to -next for some time.
I guess I expected Andrew to pick it up when he rebased his patch
series before submitting it to you.  These things sometimes slip
through the cracks.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1221134 — Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> I have been applying that patch I sent to you to -next for some time.
> I guess I expected Andrew to pick it up when he rebased his patch
> series before submitting it to you.  These things sometimes slip
> through the cracks.

I suspect Andrew saw that patch, and thought it was a merge fixup like
you sometimes send out, and didn't realize that it actually applied
directly to his series.

              Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1221140

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 16:03:23 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > I have been applying that patch I sent to you to -next for some time.
> > I guess I expected Andrew to pick it up when he rebased his patch
> > series before submitting it to you.  These things sometimes slip
> > through the cracks.
> 
> I suspect Andrew saw that patch, and thought it was a merge fixup like
> you sometimes send out, and didn't realize that it actually applied
> directly to his series.

I've had it all the time, as a post-linux-next fixup - the idea being
that I send it to you after its linux-next preconditions have been
merged up.

However I failed to put that patch inside the stephen-take-these-bits
markers, so it never went from -mm into -next.

New syscalls are rather a pain, both from the patch-monkeying POV and
also because nobody knows what the syscall numbers will be until
everything lands in mainline.  Oh well, it doesn't happen often and
it's easy stuff.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1225762 — Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi Andrew,

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:21 AM, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> New syscalls are rather a pain, both from the patch-monkeying POV and
> also because nobody knows what the syscall numbers will be until
> everything lands in mainline.  Oh well, it doesn't happen often and
> it's easy stuff.

One more reason to let the assignment of syscall numbers be handled
(1) by the architecture maintainer, (2) after -rc1, even for x86.

If x86 is no more the canonical source, scripts/checksyscalls.sh needs an
update, though.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web