On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 04:58:55PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2016-11-04 15:54:27 [+], Al Viro wrote:
> > Christoph, would you mind rereading what I posted upthread? I *am* aware of
> > that clusterfuck, including the Balint's charming games with the
> > reassignments,
> >
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 04:58:55PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2016-11-04 15:54:27 [+], Al Viro wrote:
> > Christoph, would you mind rereading what I posted upthread? I *am* aware of
> > that clusterfuck, including the Balint's charming games with the
> > reassignments,
> >
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 04:58:55PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2016-11-04 15:54:27 [+], Al Viro wrote:
> > Christoph, would you mind rereading what I posted upthread? I *am* aware of
> > that clusterfuck, including the Balint's charming games with the
> > reassignments,
> >
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 04:58:55PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2016-11-04 15:54:27 [+], Al Viro wrote:
> > Christoph, would you mind rereading what I posted upthread? I *am* aware of
> > that clusterfuck, including the Balint's charming games with the
> > reassignments,
> >
On 2016-11-04 16:10:48 [+], Al Viro wrote:
> And I don't see any way around severity:important against gcc-6. Unless the
> policy has changed, "has a major effect on the usability of a package, without
> rendering it completely unusable to everyone" still warrants that. And
> kernel
On 2016-11-04 16:10:48 [+], Al Viro wrote:
> And I don't see any way around severity:important against gcc-6. Unless the
> policy has changed, "has a major effect on the usability of a package, without
> rendering it completely unusable to everyone" still warrants that. And
> kernel
On 2016-11-04 15:54:27 [+], Al Viro wrote:
> Christoph, would you mind rereading what I posted upthread? I *am* aware of
> that clusterfuck, including the Balint's charming games with the
> reassignments,
> etc. Directly affected by the whole mess, actually.
Al, I am re-doing the patch
On 2016-11-04 15:54:27 [+], Al Viro wrote:
> Christoph, would you mind rereading what I posted upthread? I *am* aware of
> that clusterfuck, including the Balint's charming games with the
> reassignments,
> etc. Directly affected by the whole mess, actually.
Al, I am re-doing the patch
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 08:22:23AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 03:18:11PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 03:24:24PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> >
> > > Eventually Fedora and SUSE will migrate to PIE by default and by then we
> > >
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 08:22:23AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 03:18:11PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 03:24:24PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> >
> > > Eventually Fedora and SUSE will migrate to PIE by default and by then we
> > >
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 03:18:11PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 03:24:24PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
> > Eventually Fedora and SUSE will migrate to PIE by default and by then we
> > should cover all major distros so even Al should be affected unless he
> >
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 03:18:11PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 03:24:24PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
> > Eventually Fedora and SUSE will migrate to PIE by default and by then we
> > should cover all major distros so even Al should be affected unless he
> >
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 03:24:24PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> Eventually Fedora and SUSE will migrate to PIE by default and by then we
> should cover all major distros so even Al should be affected unless he
> decides not to update or is using something else.
That "something else"
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 03:24:24PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> Eventually Fedora and SUSE will migrate to PIE by default and by then we
> should cover all major distros so even Al should be affected unless he
> decides not to update or is using something else.
That "something else"
On 2016-11-04 10:39, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
On 2016.11.04 at 15:24 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
On 2016-11-04 07:37:02 [-0400], Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
clued enough to have known better. Reassigning bug reports in question
from gcc-6 to linux is beyond stupid; Balint is
On 2016-11-04 10:39, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
On 2016.11.04 at 15:24 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
On 2016-11-04 07:37:02 [-0400], Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
clued enough to have known better. Reassigning bug reports in question
from gcc-6 to linux is beyond stupid; Balint is
On 2016-11-04 10:24, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
On 2016-11-04 07:37:02 [-0400], Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
clued enough to have known better. Reassigning bug reports in question
from gcc-6 to linux is beyond stupid; Balint is either being deliberately
obtuse, or geniunely unable to
On 2016-11-04 10:24, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
On 2016-11-04 07:37:02 [-0400], Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
clued enough to have known better. Reassigning bug reports in question
from gcc-6 to linux is beyond stupid; Balint is either being deliberately
obtuse, or geniunely unable to
On 2016.11.04 at 15:24 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2016-11-04 07:37:02 [-0400], Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> > > clued enough to have known better. Reassigning bug reports in question
> > > from gcc-6 to linux is beyond stupid; Balint is either being deliberately
> > > obtuse,
On 2016.11.04 at 15:24 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2016-11-04 07:37:02 [-0400], Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> > > clued enough to have known better. Reassigning bug reports in question
> > > from gcc-6 to linux is beyond stupid; Balint is either being deliberately
> > > obtuse,
On 2016-11-04 07:37:02 [-0400], Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> > clued enough to have known better. Reassigning bug reports in question
> > from gcc-6 to linux is beyond stupid; Balint is either being deliberately
> > obtuse, or geniunely unable to imagine that somebody might be using the
> >
On 2016-11-04 07:37:02 [-0400], Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> > clued enough to have known better. Reassigning bug reports in question
> > from gcc-6 to linux is beyond stupid; Balint is either being deliberately
> > obtuse, or geniunely unable to imagine that somebody might be using the
> >
On 2016-11-03 21:08, Al Viro wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 04:50:55PM -0600, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Wed, 2016-11-02 at 18:20 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
Debian started to build the gcc with -fPIE by default so the kernel
build ends before it starts properly with:
On 2016-11-03 21:08, Al Viro wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 04:50:55PM -0600, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Wed, 2016-11-02 at 18:20 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
Debian started to build the gcc with -fPIE by default so the kernel
build ends before it starts properly with:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 04:50:55PM -0600, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-11-02 at 18:20 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > Debian started to build the gcc with -fPIE by default so the kernel
> > build ends before it starts properly with:
> > |kernel/bounds.c:1:0: error: code model
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 04:50:55PM -0600, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-11-02 at 18:20 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > Debian started to build the gcc with -fPIE by default so the kernel
> > build ends before it starts properly with:
> > |kernel/bounds.c:1:0: error: code model
On Wed, 2016-11-02 at 18:20 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> Debian started to build the gcc with -fPIE by default so the kernel
> build ends before it starts properly with:
> |kernel/bounds.c:1:0: error: code model kernel does not support PIC mode
>
>
> Also add to KBUILD_AFLAGSi due
On Wed, 2016-11-02 at 18:20 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> Debian started to build the gcc with -fPIE by default so the kernel
> build ends before it starts properly with:
> |kernel/bounds.c:1:0: error: code model kernel does not support PIC mode
>
>
> Also add to KBUILD_AFLAGSi due
Debian started to build the gcc with -fPIE by default so the kernel
build ends before it starts properly with:
|kernel/bounds.c:1:0: error: code model kernel does not support PIC mode
Also add to KBUILD_AFLAGSi due to:
|gcc -Wp,-MD,arch/x86/entry/vdso/vdso32/.note.o.d … -mfentry
Debian started to build the gcc with -fPIE by default so the kernel
build ends before it starts properly with:
|kernel/bounds.c:1:0: error: code model kernel does not support PIC mode
Also add to KBUILD_AFLAGSi due to:
|gcc -Wp,-MD,arch/x86/entry/vdso/vdso32/.note.o.d … -mfentry
30 matches
Mail list logo
