On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 09:42:25AM -0500, Chris J Arges wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 06:22:20AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 04:24:49PM -0500, Chris J Arges wrote:
> > > I still get build failures and I've pared it down to x86_64 defconfig
> > > plus:
> > > CONFIG_M
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 06:22:20AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 04:24:49PM -0500, Chris J Arges wrote:
> > I still get build failures and I've pared it down to x86_64 defconfig plus:
> > CONFIG_MODVERSIONS=y
> > CONFIG_STACK_VALIDATION=y
> >
> > And it seems like some mod
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 04:24:49PM -0500, Chris J Arges wrote:
> I still get build failures and I've pared it down to x86_64 defconfig plus:
> CONFIG_MODVERSIONS=y
> CONFIG_STACK_VALIDATION=y
>
> And it seems like some modules may get the .tmp_foo.o treatment while
> others end up foo.o so somethi
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 04:24:49PM -0500, Chris J Arges wrote:
>
> >
> > Thanks for trying it out. I couldn't figure out how to recreate this
> > exact error, but I played around with "make mrproper" and saw some
> > probably related errors. Does this fix it?
> >
> > ---8<---
> >
> > Subject:
>
> Thanks for trying it out. I couldn't figure out how to recreate this
> exact error, but I played around with "make mrproper" and saw some
> probably related errors. Does this fix it?
>
> ---8<---
>
> Subject: [PATCH] stackvalidate: fix circular build dependencies
>
> After "make mrproper
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 04:31:07PM -0500, Chris J Arges wrote:
> Josh,
>
> I've applied and tried to build your patchset against the latest
> mainline kernel with the following config:
> http://paste.ubuntu.com/12058017/
>
> I can build if I disable CONFIG_STACK_VALIDATION, then re-enable it
> af
Josh,
I've applied and tried to build your patchset against the latest
mainline kernel with the following config:
http://paste.ubuntu.com/12058017/
I can build if I disable CONFIG_STACK_VALIDATION, then re-enable it
after all objects are already built, so this seems like it should be
resolvable i
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 12:23:32PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 10:07:50AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >
> > > This is v8 of the compile-time stack validation patch set, based on the
> > > tip/master branch.
> > >
> > > The frame pointer
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 10:07:50AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > This is v8 of the compile-time stack validation patch set, based on the
> > tip/master branch.
> >
> > The frame pointer macros are still called FRAME and ENDFRAME because I
> > don't think we converg
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 10:07:50AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > This is v8 of the compile-time stack validation patch set, based on the
> > tip/master branch.
> >
> > The frame pointer macros are still called FRAME and ENDFRAME because I
> > don't think we converg
* Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> This is v8 of the compile-time stack validation patch set, based on the
> tip/master branch.
>
> The frame pointer macros are still called FRAME and ENDFRAME because I
> don't think we converged on anything else yet. Otherwise I tried to
> address all the other review
This is v8 of the compile-time stack validation patch set, based on the
tip/master branch.
The frame pointer macros are still called FRAME and ENDFRAME because I
don't think we converged on anything else yet. Otherwise I tried to
address all the other review comments from v7.
v7 can be found her
12 matches
Mail list logo
