On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 10:58 AM Sedat Dilek wrote:
>
> Sorry, I was not precise enough and didn't remember correctly.
>
> I have re-tested with Linux v5.3-rc8. All OK.
No worries at all! I just wanted to clarify it :)
Thanks a lot for confirming it works.
Cheers,
Miguel
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 1:59 PM Miguel Ojeda
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 7:50 AM Sedat Dilek wrote:
> >
> > The compiler-attribute patchset sit for some weeks in linux-next, so I
> > have not seen any complains.
>
> It has been there only since Monday (cleanly), not weeks.
>
Sorry, I was n
The pull request you sent on Sun, 8 Sep 2019 15:19:02 +0200:
> https://github.com/ojeda/linux.git tags/clang-format-for-linus-v5.3-rc8
has been merged into torvalds/linux.git:
https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/983f700eab89c73562f308fc49b1561377d3920e
Thank you!
--
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
ht
On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 3:19 PM Miguel Ojeda
wrote:
>
> https://github.com/ojeda/linux.git tags/clang-format-for-linus-v5.3-rc8
Typo in the tag name, you can also use the tag:
https://github.com/ojeda/linux.git
tags/compiler-attributes-for-linus-v5.3-rc8
Cheers,
Miguel
Hi Linus,
Here it is the Oops-fixing cherry-picked commit for -rc8 from the __section
cleanup series.
Cheers,
Miguel
The following changes since commit 089cf7f6ecb266b6a4164919a2e69bd2f938374a:
Linux 5.3-rc7 (2019-09-02 09:57:40 -0700)
are available in the Git repository at:
https://githu
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 7:50 AM Sedat Dilek wrote:
>
> The compiler-attribute patchset sit for some weeks in linux-next, so I
> have not seen any complains.
It has been there only since Monday (cleanly), not weeks.
Cheers,
Miguel
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 12:59 AM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:45 PM Nick Desaulniers
> wrote:
> >
> > > Yes. With the appropriate test cycle
> >
> > Sedat reported the issue and already tested/verified the fix. How
> > long should it sit in -next before sending a PR for inc
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:45 PM Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>
> > Yes. With the appropriate test cycle
>
> Sedat reported the issue and already tested/verified the fix. How
> long should it sit in -next before sending a PR for inclusion to 5.3
> (as opposed to letting it ride out to 5.4)?
If the orig
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:08 PM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:07 PM Nick Desaulniers
> wrote:
> >
> > So then Miguel should maybe split off a new branch, rebase to keep
> > just the relevant patch
> > (https://github.com/ojeda/linux/commit/c97e82b97f4bba00304905fe7965f923abd2
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:07 PM Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>
> So then Miguel should maybe split off a new branch, rebase to keep
> just the relevant patch
> (https://github.com/ojeda/linux/commit/c97e82b97f4bba00304905fe7965f923abd2d755),
> and send a PR to you for inclusion in 5.3?
Yes. With the ap
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 4:11 PM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:47 PM Nick Desaulniers
> wrote:
> >
> > Sedat reported
> > (https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/619#issuecomment-520042577,
> > https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/619#issuecomment-52006552
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:47 PM Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>
> Sedat reported
> (https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/619#issuecomment-520042577,
> https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/619#issuecomment-520065525)
> that only the bottom two hunks of that patch
> (https://github.c
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 1:11 PM Miguel Ojeda
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 10:53 PM Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> >
> > That's probably what we should have done originally, avoiding all the
> > issues with "what if we have multi-part strings" etc.
> >
> > But it's not what we did, probably because
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 10:53 PM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> That's probably what we should have done originally, avoiding all the
> issues with "what if we have multi-part strings" etc.
>
> But it's not what we did, probably because it looked slightly simpler
> to do the stringification in the macro
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 12:41 PM Miguel Ojeda
wrote:
>
> Nick, Linus: shouldn't we just simply go for no stringifying at all,
> i.e. changing it to:
>
> #define __section(S) __attribute__((__section__(S)))
That's probably what we should have done originally, avoiding all the
issues with "wha
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 7:22 PM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> "Why not just clean up the rest" is how bugs happen.
>
> If it's not a fix, and it's not marked for stable (or a regression
> from the merge window) it shouldn't go in this late in the rc period.
>
> Send me _fixes_. Don't send me stuff that
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 6:20 PM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> Macro stringification isn't entirely obvious, and an unquoted string
> could become corrupted if the stringification ends up not happening
> immediately.
Nick, Linus: shouldn't we just simply go for no stringifying at all,
i.e. changing it
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 10:18 AM Nick Desaulniers
wrote:
>
> Please consider picking up just:
> https://github.com/ojeda/linux/commit/c97e82b97f4bba00304905fe7965f923abd2d755
> That lone patch is the one that fixes the particularly observed Oops.
> The rest are just cleanup; if I made that change i
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 9:20 AM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 11:18 AM Miguel Ojeda
> wrote:
> >
> > I was going to send this for 5.4 since it is not that trivial, but since
> > you are doing an -rc8, and it fixes an oops, please consider pulling it.
>
> I looked at this, and wh
On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 11:18 AM Miguel Ojeda
wrote:
>
> I was going to send this for 5.4 since it is not that trivial, but since
> you are doing an -rc8, and it fixes an oops, please consider pulling it.
I looked at this, and while it seems safe, I end up worrying.
Macro stringification isn't en
On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 8:18 PM Miguel Ojeda
wrote:
>
> I was going to send this for 5.4 since it is not that trivial, but since
> you are doing an -rc8, and it fixes an oops, please consider pulling it.
By the way, if you choose to pick it for 5.4 instead, I will take the
chance to improve a few
Hi Linus,
I was going to send this for 5.4 since it is not that trivial, but since
you are doing an -rc8, and it fixes an oops, please consider pulling it.
Cheers,
Miguel
The following changes since commit a55aa89aab90fae7c815b0551b07be37db359d76:
Linux 5.3-rc6 (2019-08-25 12:01:23 -0700)
ar
22 matches
Mail list logo
