On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:36 AM, Dominique Martinet
wrote:
> Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote on Thu, Sep 20, 2018:
>> Why not just route these through Andrew? He takes lots of stuff like
>> this for this very reason.
>
> That works for me (although it might have helped if Andrew had been in
> Cc at any
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
> For this instance, I think we should just revert the offending patch,
> which should resolve the issue for everyone and then you can try to redo
> your series to get it right the next time.
>
> Sound good?
On one hand, "reverting & retr
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:37 AM Dominique Martinet
wrote:
> Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote on Thu, Sep 20, 2018:
> > "Fixes:" is not just for stable, we use it wherever we have a patch that
> > we know fixes a problem introduced in another patch.
> >
> > For this instance, I think we should just revert
Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote on Thu, Sep 20, 2018:
> "Fixes:" is not just for stable, we use it wherever we have a patch that
> we know fixes a problem introduced in another patch.
>
> For this instance, I think we should just revert the offending patch,
> which should resolve the issue for everyone a
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 02:10:24AM +0200, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> Miguel Ojeda wrote on Thu, Sep 20, 2018:
> > > I've not followed so closely, in particular I'm not sure if it's the
> > > only problem with arm32 right now, but that is a regression - the
> > > general serie is meant as an improv
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 01:00:41AM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> >> I am going to send a v5 of the entire series without these two
> >> patches, based on -rc4 (or -next, which one do you prefer? I would say
> >> these patches should be applied early in the -next branches, so that
> >> everyone is re
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:00:37PM -0700, Stefan Agner wrote:
> On 19.09.2018 16:00, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:14 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 08:56:04PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> >>> Hi Greg,
> >>>
> >>
> >>> Since Linus/Andrew/you
> >
On 19.09.2018 16:00, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:14 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 08:56:04PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>>> Hi Greg,
>>>
>>
>>> Since Linus/Andrew/you
>>> didn't comment on whether you wanted or not this for 4.19, we are
>>> assumin
Miguel Ojeda wrote on Thu, Sep 20, 2018:
> > I've not followed so closely, in particular I'm not sure if it's the
> > only problem with arm32 right now, but that is a regression - the
> > general serie is meant as an improvement, but these two patches fix
> > 815f0ddb346c ("include/linux/compiler*.
Hi Dominique,
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 1:05 AM, Dominique Martinet
wrote:
> Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote on Wed, Sep 19, 2018:
>> > > So, with this applied, does clang really build an arm32 kernel
>> > > successfully? No other problem at all? And this isn't really a
>> > > regression, arm32 never re
Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote on Wed, Sep 19, 2018:
> > > So, with this applied, does clang really build an arm32 kernel
> > > successfully? No other problem at all? And this isn't really a
> > > regression, arm32 never really worked with clang yet, right?
> >
> > To recap a bit: these two patches co
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:14 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 08:56:04PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>
>> Since Linus/Andrew/you
>> didn't comment on whether you wanted or not this for 4.19, we are
>> assuming they would go in for 4.20. However, Stefan/Nick/..
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 08:56:04PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 7:34 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 06:55:42PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> >> The naked attribute is supported by at least gcc >= 4.6 (for ARM,
> >> which is the only
Hi Greg,
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 7:34 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 06:55:42PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>> The naked attribute is supported by at least gcc >= 4.6 (for ARM,
>> which is the only current user), gcc >= 8 (for x86), clang >= 3.1
>> and icc >= 13. See https
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 06:55:42PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> The naked attribute is supported by at least gcc >= 4.6 (for ARM,
> which is the only current user), gcc >= 8 (for x86), clang >= 3.1
> and icc >= 13. See https://godbolt.org/z/350Dyc
>
> Therefore, move it out of compiler-gcc.h so th
The naked attribute is supported by at least gcc >= 4.6 (for ARM,
which is the only current user), gcc >= 8 (for x86), clang >= 3.1
and icc >= 13. See https://godbolt.org/z/350Dyc
Therefore, move it out of compiler-gcc.h so that the definition
is shared by all compilers.
This also fixes Clang sup
16 matches
Mail list logo
