On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 20:45, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 20:43, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulni...@google.com> > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 11:28 AM Ard Biesheuvel > > <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 20:25, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulni...@google.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 11:20 AM Ard Biesheuvel > > > > <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > Provided that we stop sending Clang enablement patches to -stable: > > > > > > > > What does that mean? We're trying to provide clang support back to > > > > 4.4 LTS branches. (so 4.4, 4.9, 4.14, 4.19). > > > > > > I understand that is what you are attempting, but that does not mean > > > it /belongs/ in -stable. > > > > > > There are rules for stable, and people that track stable kernels (such > > > as the distros) should be able to rely on us to only backport bug > > > fixes, not linker script changes and other updates that fix issues > > > that did not exist when those kernels were released. > > > > > > It is unclear to me how these clang changes benefit those users. > > > > If you're referring to > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/stable/msg278381.html, that's fair (I > > think those were helpful for LLD support on arm64). > > > > Why didn't you speak up then? Why is this coming up now? > > That is just one example, and I failed to realise it at the time. > > I think the Clang/LLVM work you are doing is very important, but I > simply don't think any of it belongs in -stable kernels.
OK, to clarify my position: I have no problem whatsoever with taking this patch into v5.x, so Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> but going forward, I will push back on -stable backports for Clang/LLVM specific changes, since they are obviously in violation of the stable kernel rules.
