From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1147C2877D6; Fri, 14 Nov 2025 04:23:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763094184; cv=none; b=PD/2JruQNOOF0gRmWNMj5+QwX+zqXmkhAg1vc8wVhFjFwpVbmznJo7Vd2/nmGwCMmcgy/Oy19KDc0FrbYFWGlYcyAhFIBT9QPiVJcThP1jwXPxaDTwxX6rEhwJWgnxtjPI78lCWGQ3jyXcPeyIGUsy/toSz40vo8WoWE9BcUknI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763094184; c=relaxed/simple; bh=RobVRCgZWKDAOE0gDSu7wYFNPR+HLgdW/UejZYDDlGE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=HwosUN2xICIV0XvSLPmJSh10yrAGl9HL/ZHukSmc9/CccjnO8ZnpJNdMmxZ/EtnA+cM4byD5VX2vBe/VUz9M1WreN9Nye9kr0rmkmsY23olojpug/jS8Ukyops8E4KUtmkRaw8z0NalEExrnkcjI9yIeFvzC6HF2p7sCslLCNBE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=JpQ9qeou; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="JpQ9qeou" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C574FC16AAE; Fri, 14 Nov 2025 04:22:57 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1763094183; bh=RobVRCgZWKDAOE0gDSu7wYFNPR+HLgdW/UejZYDDlGE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=JpQ9qeouOkhcbiv4XbYPE+RA9hjIDmMQ+z1O63pqvJGFha1JCpQaMOcKWJgzbo8tk XJ4yA30qSWHnrF0Xbwx9XxwaF0nqeyeu8ltfDqZPbN3oex3L07o5IThMLseHcDg6Bv 1fAuESBIcya76J7XaQggkHMa4Yk+pn7g9Vu2i9/p55spB0NQ8CVygWnFp30/HA2jVh P2AYeyhI/xe9XkmCwZgHndjonZMsbW6q7wfnGOteYAV8PYxLE0bQz5bLBmRsnPFe95 PgIaRb96v6thoR4zQ8OxMZQCYI5p7PTlsPB72vjiLqaxbzH5FAExUCREc5KTbvjwxG 7NLMjsjSUxLpA== Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2025 21:22:54 -0700 From: Nathan Chancellor To: Thomas =?iso-8859-1?Q?Wei=DFschuh?= Cc: Nicolas Schier , Paul Walmsley , Palmer Dabbelt , Albert Ou , Alexandre Ghiti , Heiko Carstens , Vasily Gorbik , Alexander Gordeev , Christian Borntraeger , Sven Schnelle , Madhavan Srinivasan , Michael Ellerman , Nicholas Piggin , Christophe Leroy , Thomas Bogendoerfer , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , "David S. Miller" , Andreas Larsson , linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Masahiro Yamada , linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] kbuild: userprogs: introduce architecture-specific CC_CAN_LINK and userprog flags Message-ID: <20251114042254.GB2566209@ax162> References: <20251014-kbuild-userprogs-bits-v2-0-faeec46e887a@linutronix.de> <20251113102307-ca2180c8-4876-46ea-8678-aaedd9ba36f0@linutronix.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20251113102307-ca2180c8-4876-46ea-8678-aaedd9ba36f0@linutronix.de> On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 10:31:10AM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 09:03:23PM +0100, Nicolas Schier wrote: > > Thanks for the patch set and all the work behind! I found only one > > issue in patch 3, the rest looks good to me as they are. > > > > I haven't reviewed the compiler flags for the archs, but from the formal > > point of view they look good to me, too. > > > > How shall we proceed with here? I think, easiest would be if we get > > appropriate acks from the architecture maintainers, so we could take > > this via kbuild. > > That would surely be the best option. Unfortunately quite frequently it is hard > to get architecture maintainer's feedback on a cross-architecture series. > > > Other opinions? > > It would also work to only take the first three patches through the kbuild tree > and push the other ones through the architecture trees. > > I don't really have a clear preference. If you do not have a preference, I think it would be easier if Nicolas picks up the first three patches (which I will go review formally shortly, sorry again for the delay on that) to make sure they make 6.19-rc1 then you can send out the architecture changes individually with plans to pick up any ones that have been left behind after a development cycle? That should give architecture maintainers enough time to properly react and review the series (since they will know if those flags are appropriate). We could probably send the last patch as a fix if those changes do not land until 6.20-rc1. Cheers, Nathan