From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dominique Martinet Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] Compiler Attributes: naked can be shared Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 01:05:04 +0200 Message-ID: <20180919230504.GA20280@nautica> 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=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180919211458.GA8757@kroah.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Miguel Ojeda , linux-kernel , Rasmus Villemoes , Eli Friedman , Christopher Li , Kees Cook , Ingo Molnar , Geert Uytterhoeven , Masahiro Yamada , Joe Perches , Linus Torvalds , linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org 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 come from the "Compiler Attributes" > > series which is meant as a general improvement. > > Ok, so that's not for regressions, that's fine. 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*.h: make compiler-*.h mutually exclusive") which was taken in 4.19-rc1 (Miguel, perhaps a Fixes: tag might help remember that?) > If these do not fix a regression, I don't see how they would be ready > for 4.19-final. So the rest of the series is not a regression and isn't ready for 4.19-final, these two would be, but only got tested by the handful of people in Cc here ; so ultimately it's your call. > > 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 :) I think that was more or less his question, there is no maintainer for these files, so who should that whomever be? :) The thing is linux took this kind of patch directly last time, but ideally it really should sink in -next for a bit... (If no-one in Cc has anything included in -next I could take them in my 9p branch, but that is quite a bit out of scope from what I advertised this branch as so I think it would be confusing ; I think it might almost be best if Miguel will keep maintaining these in the future to do his own request to inclusion in -next?) -- Dominique Martinet