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=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no 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 B7FC2C433DF for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 05:33:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A187206DA for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 05:33:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728015AbgHCFdw (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Aug 2020 01:33:52 -0400 Received: from wtarreau.pck.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60]:39323 "EHLO 1wt.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727860AbgHCFdw (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Aug 2020 01:33:52 -0400 Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 0735XTuL015640; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 07:33:29 +0200 Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2020 07:33:29 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Michael Ellerman , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Linux-kernel Mailing List , PowerPC , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: powerpc: build failures in Linus' tree Message-ID: <20200803053329.GA15637@1wt.eu> References: <20200802204842.36bca162@canb.auug.org.au> <20200802172019.GB26677@1wt.eu> <20200803034547.GA15501@1wt.eu> <20200803141017.55dd6cc7@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200803141017.55dd6cc7@canb.auug.org.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 02:10:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Our mails have crossed. Ah indeed :-) > I just sent a more comprehensive patch. I > think your patch would require a lot of build testing and even then may > fail for some CONFIG combination that we didn't test or added in the > future (or someone just made up). Your looks far more complete and very likely more future-proof, I totally agree. Thanks! Willy