From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Desaulniers Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] compiler.h: give up __compiletime_assert_fallback() Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:29:19 -0700 Message-ID: References: <84cf6ae0-97c8-6b73-ca86-b3d3b3daba5b@pobox.com> <8d5cf8c6-556a-96a1-610d-c92355783a9f@pobox.com> <20180926180019.GD22824@google.com> <20180926184259.GB14797@kroah.com> <20180926190303.GA18293@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180926190303.GA18293@kroah.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Kees Cook , Matthias Kaehlcke Cc: Linus Torvalds , Masahiro Yamada , sparse@chrisli.org, linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org, LKML , daniel.santos@pobox.com, chris@chris-wilson.co.uk, jani.nikula@intel.com, Greg KH List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 12:03 PM Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:45:19AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:42 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > > I'm not digging up a compiler.h patch from a web site and adding it to > > > the tree this late in the release cycle. Especially given that it > > > hasn't had any testing anywhere... > > > > Good point about it not living in -next. > > > > Who should be carrying these sorts of patches? In the past it's been > > Andrew or Masahiro, yes? For linux-next, maybe it can go via -mm? > > Either is fine with me, as long as it isn't one of my trees :) > > thanks, > > greg k-h Besides, I think we want the v2: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/8/25/103 -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers