linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the powerpc-fixes tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the pidfd tree got a conflict in:

  arch/powerpc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl

between commit:

  35e32a6cb5f6 ("powerpc/syscalls: Split SPU-ness out of ABI")

from the powerpc-fixes tree and commit:

  9b4feb630e8e ("arch: wire-up close_range()")

from the pidfd tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> writes:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the pidfd tree got a conflict in:
>
>   arch/powerpc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
>
> between commit:
>
>   35e32a6cb5f6 ("powerpc/syscalls: Split SPU-ness out of ABI")
>
> from the powerpc-fixes tree and commit:
>
>   9b4feb630e8e ("arch: wire-up close_range()")
>
> from the pidfd tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.

Thanks.

I thought the week between rc1 and rc2 would be a safe time to do that
conversion of the syscall table, but I guess I was wrong :)

I'm planning to send those changes to Linus for rc2, so the conflict
will then be vs mainline. But I guess it's pretty trivial so it doesn't
really matter.

cheers

> diff --cc arch/powerpc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> index c0cdaacd770e,dd87a782d80e..000000000000
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> @@@ -480,6 -524,8 +480,7 @@@
>   434	common	pidfd_open			sys_pidfd_open
>   435	32	clone3				ppc_clone3			sys_clone3
>   435	64	clone3				sys_clone3
>  -435	spu	clone3				sys_ni_syscall
> + 436	common	close_range			sys_close_range
>   437	common	openat2				sys_openat2
>   438	common	pidfd_getfd			sys_pidfd_getfd
>   439	common	faccessat2			sys_faccessat2

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 09:17:30PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> writes:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the pidfd tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >   arch/powerpc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >   35e32a6cb5f6 ("powerpc/syscalls: Split SPU-ness out of ABI")
> >
> > from the powerpc-fixes tree and commit:
> >
> >   9b4feb630e8e ("arch: wire-up close_range()")
> >
> > from the pidfd tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> > is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> > conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> > is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> > with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> > complex conflicts.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> I thought the week between rc1 and rc2 would be a safe time to do that
> conversion of the syscall table, but I guess I was wrong :)

:)

> 
> I'm planning to send those changes to Linus for rc2, so the conflict
> will then be vs mainline. But I guess it's pretty trivial so it doesn't
> really matter.

close_range() is targeted for the v5.9 merge window. I always do
test-merges with mainline at the time I'm creating a pr and I'll just
mention to Linus that there's conflict with ppc. :)

Thanks!
Christian

Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 09:17:30PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> writes:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Today's linux-next merge of the pidfd tree got a conflict in:
>> >
>> >   arch/powerpc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
>> >
>> > between commit:
>> >
>> >   35e32a6cb5f6 ("powerpc/syscalls: Split SPU-ness out of ABI")
>> >
>> > from the powerpc-fixes tree and commit:
>> >
>> >   9b4feb630e8e ("arch: wire-up close_range()")
>> >
>> > from the pidfd tree.
>> >
>> > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
>> > is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
>> > conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
>> > is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
>> > with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
>> > complex conflicts.
...
>> 
>> I'm planning to send those changes to Linus for rc2, so the conflict
>> will then be vs mainline. But I guess it's pretty trivial so it doesn't
>> really matter.
>
> close_range() is targeted for the v5.9 merge window. I always do
> test-merges with mainline at the time I'm creating a pr and I'll just
> mention to Linus that there's conflict with ppc. :)

I ended up dropping the patch, so there shouldn't be a conflict anymore.

cheers