From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stefan Agner Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] Compiler Attributes: naked can be shared Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 23:00:37 -0700 Message-ID: <6837090afde15cd5ee155dbfabb0d556@agner.ch> References: <20180918165542.4691-1-miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> <20180918165542.4691-3-miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> <20180918173428.GA21591@kroah.com> <20180919211458.GA8757@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Miguel Ojeda , Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Nick Desaulniers , Arnd Bergmann , linux-kernel , Rasmus Villemoes , Eli Friedman , Christopher Li , Kees Cook , Ingo Molnar , Geert Uytterhoeven , Masahiro Yamada , Joe Perches , Dominique Martinet , Linus Torvalds , linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org 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 >>> assuming they would go in for 4.20. However, Stefan/Nick/... wanted >>> this for 4.19 instead, they asked me to extract these patches two >>> separately for 4.19. I let them comment further on the status of Clang >>> on arm32. >> >> If these do not fix a regression, I don't see how they would be ready >> for 4.19-final. Clang on arm32 worked with v4.18 when using multi_v7_defconfig -CONFIG_EFI. With 815f0ddb346c ("include/linux/compiler*.h: make compiler-*.h mutually exclusive") it broke on v4.19-rc1. IMHO this is a regression and we should consider this two patches as a fix for it. > > Ok, I will wait a bit to send v5 until this is sorted out. > > [CC'd Nick, Stefan, Arnd: I just noticed the Reviewed-by/... lines > were not picked as CC]. Oh yeah thanks, really did not notice the discussion around v2 until you CC'd me now. -- Stefan > >> >>> 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 ready for the change, given it "touches" every translation >>> unit). >> >> That's up to whomever takes these into their tree for linux-next >> inclusion. If you are about to break everything, then you might >> consider changing your patches so they do not do that :) >> > > Well, the series shouldn't break anything (famous last words :), even > if everyone includes those headers. So, in theory, they *could* be > applied anywhere, anytime; but given they are global changes... > > Cheers, > Miguel