Hi, Miguel,
On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 11:44 PM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 4:16 AM WANG Rui <wangrui@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > 6.8
>
> Thanks, that is quite expedited...
>
> Please `rustfmt` the code to avoid failing the `rustfmtcheck` target.
> I see you already created the 6.8 tag but I have not seen it in
> linux-next yet and you did not send the PR, so it would be ideal if
> you could fix this before it goes to Linus.
>
> diff --git a/scripts/generate_rust_target.rs b/scripts/generate_rust_target.rs
> index 3edda6a10..0da52b548 100644
> --- a/scripts/generate_rust_target.rs
> +++ b/scripts/generate_rust_target.rs
> @@ -163,10 +163,7 @@ fn main() {
> ts.push("target-pointer-width", "64");
> } else if cfg.has("LOONGARCH") {
> ts.push("arch", "loongarch64");
> - ts.push(
> - "data-layout",
> - "e-m:e-p:64:64-i64:64-i128:128-n64-S128",
> - );
> + ts.push("data-layout", "e-m:e-p:64:64-i64:64-i128:128-n64-S128");
> ts.push("features", "-f,-d");
> ts.push("llvm-target", "loongarch64-linux-gnusf");
> ts.push("llvm-abiname", "lp64s");
>
> Thanks!
Thank you for your suggestion, but since this will be replaced by the
built-in target soon, and I don't want to change the tag to make Linus
unhappy. Let's leave it as is.
Huacai
>
> Cheers,
> Miguel
