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 B2CB26FA1 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2023 15:23:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9BEF6C433EF; Fri, 24 Mar 2023 15:23:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1679671398; bh=pSKqpC0a1kWME7wWNk8qBL0xdEmVi13/hyo55l1Pm08=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=HRiqB9cfU8MwjF/Ip6NmJBjYpbr/mpSLcd+TVVfddfoK+QK9yBnzXCdB9MoxAhYfP ATnCkS+AnfJK7YaoqAMFy5X//g+iAVIvZZRx0yr21uWb3M5Omm/0cLqwgFAluPa3ty 8Sw1hqfduRdJSsUr5F6kC1omPyDMoSeYZ0ERDoguL05Mg/5mvUUTfPtM5R7GaoOLJ2 BmhcBeO7+ipKHkUV4BRhzp00/frpyeJ7p0ylOvoj+6DNPCVTZYNnQyAONo3nd1IRPe XnrumaqU5wI6hKVclvYDeAq8ogxYV/UNMRUBUEtnllhvZ7MUvaXxv7naVSKnBJWZjz zgH44JrMoozvw== From: Kalle Valo To: Nathan Chancellor Cc: Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List , David Airlie , Daniel Vetter , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: Linux 6.3-rc3 References: <20230320180501.GA598084@dev-arch.thelio-3990X> <20230320185337.GA615556@dev-arch.thelio-3990X> <87pm91uf9c.fsf@kernel.org> <20230322163637.GA918620@dev-arch.thelio-3990X> <87wn36ctdi.fsf@kernel.org> <20230324151150.GC428955@dev-arch.thelio-3990X> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2023 17:23:12 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20230324151150.GC428955@dev-arch.thelio-3990X> (Nathan Chancellor's message of "Fri, 24 Mar 2023 08:11:50 -0700") Message-ID: <87o7oicgwv.fsf@kernel.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: llvm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Nathan Chancellor writes: >> This is nitpicking but it would be nice if the tarball contents wouldn't >> conflict with each other. Now both llvm-16.0.0-aarch64.tar.gz and >> llvm-16.0.0-x86_64.tar extract to the same directory llvm-16.0.0 with >> same binary names. It would be much better if they would extract to >> llvm-16.0.0-aarch64 and llvm-16.0.0-x86_64, respectively. >> >> For example, Arnd's crosstool packages don't conflict with each other: >> >> https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/ > > I could certainly do that but what is the use case for extracting both? > You cannot run the aarch64 version on an x86_64 host and vice versa, so > why bother extracting them? Ah, I didn't realise that. I assumed llvm-16.0.0-aarch64.tar.gz was a cross compiler. I'm sure you documented that in the page but hey who reads the documentation ;) > I had figured the architecture would be irrelevant once installed on > the host, so I opted only to include it in the tarball name. Perhaps I > should make it clearer that these are the host architectures, not the > target architectures (because clang is multi-targeted, unlike GCC)? Makes sense now. But I still think it's good style that a tarball named llvm-16.0.0-aarch64.tar.gz extracts to llvm-16.0.0-aarch64. >> And maybe request a similar llvm directory under pub/tools to make it >> more official? :) > > Yes, I was talking that over with Nick recently, as having it under a > group on kernel.org would make taking over maintainership easier should > something happen to me :) Yeah, sharing the load is always good. -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches