From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CA77C34026 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 10:46:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 488CD206E2 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 10:46:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=alien8.de header.i=@alien8.de header.b="qZRHe97W" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726539AbgBRKp7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Feb 2020 05:45:59 -0500 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]:60878 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726360AbgBRKp6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Feb 2020 05:45:58 -0500 Received: from zn.tnic (p200300EC2F0C1F003890503FBB74C433.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:ec:2f0c:1f00:3890:503f:bb74:c433]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.skyhub.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTPSA id D4F7E1EC0CBD; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 11:45:56 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alien8.de; s=dkim; t=1582022757; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=MniJx5EUkDA02LoDvBaCsdxNfVPX/sQJ7VGNHV/WtG0=; b=qZRHe97WrVyaJUsoYTk9jNHsVIS+lMHo0c4S4aEGXMYU0Lfbk5eOv7oAMNU1u0DzkBlaZ1 ndziXWV/hL7mddjGzgil+7Ld9J3zwkCy/60Xv2sqaN39uqk4nGPS66+AarpFnC+kNf9YjR fwuzZmkzw/YCNqZqLLcPHgV1VQ1Imww= Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 11:45:53 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov To: "H.J. Lu" Cc: Andy Lutomirski , LKML , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H . Peter Anvin" , the arch/x86 maintainers , Yu-cheng Yu Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Don't declare __force_order in kaslr_64.c Message-ID: <20200218104552.GA14449@zn.tnic> References: <20200124181811.4780-1-hjl.tools@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:44:30AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: > This updated patch fixed a typo in Subject: "care" -> "declare". > > From c8c26194cf5a344cd53763eaaf16c3ab609736f4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: "H.J. Lu" > Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 12:46:51 -0800 > Subject: [PATCH] x86: Don't declare __force_order in kaslr_64.c > > GCC 10 changed the default to -fno-common, which leads to > > LD arch/x86/boot/compressed/vmlinux > ld: arch/x86/boot/compressed/pgtable_64.o:(.bss+0x0): multiple definition of `__force_order'; arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr_64.o:(.bss+0x0): first defined here > make[2]: *** [arch/x86/boot/compressed/Makefile:119: arch/x86/boot/compressed/vmlinux] Error 1 > > Since __force_order is already provided in pgtable_64.c, there is no > need to declare __force_order in kaslr_64.c. > > Signed-off-by: H.J. Lu > Signed-off-by: Yu-cheng Yu What is Yu-cheng's SOB supposed to mean here? The only case where it would make sense is if he's sending this patch but he isn't. So what's up? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette