On 4/28/2016 11:23 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 28 April 2016 10:58:43 Chris Metcalf wrote:
(Resending as text/plain)
On 4/27/2016 5:34 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
This won't help on TILE, which is the one architecture that sets
ARCH_SUPPORTS_OPTIMIZED_INLINING but does not set ARCH_USE_B
On Thursday 28 April 2016 10:58:43 Chris Metcalf wrote:
> (Resending as text/plain)
>
> On 4/27/2016 5:34 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > This won't help on TILE, which is the one architecture that sets
> > ARCH_SUPPORTS_OPTIMIZED_INLINING but does not set ARCH_USE_BUILTIN_BSWAP.
> > Chris Metcalf sh
(Resending as text/plain)
On 4/27/2016 5:34 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
This won't help on TILE, which is the one architecture that sets
ARCH_SUPPORTS_OPTIMIZED_INLINING but does not set ARCH_USE_BUILTIN_BSWAP.
Chris Metcalf should be able to figure out whether we can just
set ARCH_USE_BUILTIN_BSWA
On Wednesday 27 April 2016 13:05:03 Martin Jambor wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 05:58:20PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 26 April 2016 09:06:54 Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> > > > "Arnd" == Arnd Bergmann writes:
> > >
> > > Arnd> I don't think we can realistically blacklist gcc-
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 05:58:20PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 April 2016 09:06:54 Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> > > "Arnd" == Arnd Bergmann writes:
> >
> > Arnd> I don't think we can realistically blacklist gcc-4.9.{0,1,2,3},
> > Arnd> gcc-5.{0,1,2,3}.* and gcc-6.0 and req
> "James" == James Bottomley writes:
>> The last point is what Denys introduced in the kernel with
>> bc27fb68aaad ("include/uapi/linux/byteorder, swab: force inlining of
>> some byteswap operations"). So maybe it's better after all to revert
>> that patch, to have a higher confidence in the
On Tue, 2016-04-26 at 17:58 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 April 2016 09:06:54 Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> > > > > > > "Arnd" == Arnd Bergmann writes:
> >
> > Arnd> I don't think we can realistically blacklist gcc
> > -4.9.{0,1,2,3},
> > Arnd> gcc-5.{0,1,2,3}.* and gcc-6.0 and requir
On Tuesday 26 April 2016 09:06:54 Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> > "Arnd" == Arnd Bergmann writes:
>
> Arnd> I don't think we can realistically blacklist gcc-4.9.{0,1,2,3},
> Arnd> gcc-5.{0,1,2,3}.* and gcc-6.0 and require everyone to upgrade to
> Arnd> compilers that have not been released yet
> "Arnd" == Arnd Bergmann writes:
Arnd> I don't think we can realistically blacklist gcc-4.9.{0,1,2,3},
Arnd> gcc-5.{0,1,2,3}.* and gcc-6.0 and require everyone to upgrade to
Arnd> compilers that have not been released yet in order to build a
Arnd> linux-4.6 kernel.
I agree that compiler bla
On Tuesday 26 April 2016 01:35:16 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 09:22:46AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > Agree, plus, as I've said before, we have 3-4 weeks before we go final,
> > > so we still have some time before a decision has to be made. It looks
> > > like the gcc p
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 09:22:46AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > Agree, plus, as I've said before, we have 3-4 weeks before we go final,
> > so we still have some time before a decision has to be made. It looks
> > like the gcc people already have a patch for the compiler, so the
> > distributio
On Monday 25 April 2016 20:37:31 James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-04-25 at 22:40 -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> > > > > > > "Josh" == Josh Poimboeuf writes:
> >
> > Josh> Can you merge this patch for 4.6?
> >
> > I am really not a big fan of working around compiler bugs in a device
> >
On Mon, 2016-04-25 at 22:40 -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> > > > > > "Josh" == Josh Poimboeuf writes:
>
> Josh> Can you merge this patch for 4.6?
>
> I am really not a big fan of working around compiler bugs in a device
> driver.
Me neither
> Are we sure there are no other get_unaligned_be
> "Josh" == Josh Poimboeuf writes:
Josh> Can you merge this patch for 4.6?
I am really not a big fan of working around compiler bugs in a device
driver.
Are we sure there are no other get_unaligned_be64() calls in the kernel
that suffer the same fate?
--
Martin K. Petersen Oracle Lin
James,
Can you merge this patch for 4.6?
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 08:56:00AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> objtool reports [1] the following warning:
>
> drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_attr.o: warning: objtool:
> qla2x00_get_host_fabric_name() falls through to next function
> qla2x00_get_starget_
eter Zijlstra , David Rientjes
, Andrew Morton , Arnd Bergmann
, "jamb...@gcc.gnu.org" , Ingo Molnar
, Himanshu Madhani , Dept-Eng
QLA2xxx Upstream
Subject: [PATCH] scsi: fc: force inlining of wwn conversion functions
>objtool reports [1] the following warning:
>
> drivers/
objtool reports [1] the following warning:
drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_attr.o: warning: objtool:
qla2x00_get_host_fabric_name() falls through to next function
qla2x00_get_starget_port_name()
This warning is due to a gcc bug [2] which causes corrupt code:
2f53 :
2f53: 5
17 matches
Mail list logo