From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mans@mansr.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 21:49:07 +0100 Subject: new binutils needed for arm in 3.12-rc1 In-Reply-To: <20130925204432.GW25647@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> (Russell King's message of "Wed, 25 Sep 2013 21:44:32 +0100") References: <1380122586.1974.84@driftwood> <20130925204432.GW25647@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Russell King - ARM Linux writes: > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:23:06AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: >> On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: >>> It could be as simple as making gas accept an extra argument for >>> instructions like dsb and just ignoring it. >> >> So you prefer I come up with the reversion patches locally and _not_ >> send them upstream? > > This is a silly attitude. What you're effectively saying is that we > are never allowed to use any future ARM instructions in any Linux > kernel because that might break your precious assembler. > > I've got news for you. We're *not* going to listen to that argument. > > END OF DISCUSSION (everything else is just a waste of time.) I fully agree. -- M?ns Rullg?rd mans at mansr.com