On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 20:16:14 +1000 Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to submit the kbuild changes in patches 1-3 for > consideration. > > I've taken on the feedback, so thanks everybody for that. The > biggest change since last time is a more general way for > architectures to do a post-link pass in patch 3. > > On the question of whether to enable thin archives unconditionally, > I prefer to have architectures enable them as they are tested. But > I would like to see everybody moved as soon as possible and the > incremental linking removed. > > All patches should be basically noops without arch enablement, > so I include initial powerpc enablement in patches 4-6 for > reference, but I will submit those via powerpc maintainer if > the kbuild changes are merged. Hi Michal, I'm wondering what your thoughts are with this series? Sam had some other comment on patch 3, but I think it has come to a matter of preference. I don't mind too much, so I can change it to whatever people prefer (sh or makefile). And did you want me to re-post the series, or are you happy to take updated patches from replies? The ARM slowness with allyesconfig builds with thin archives was a linker workaround for a processor bug that they don't need to enable for allyesconfig build anyway. I provided them a patch to avoid that. For usual sized builds, it's not noticeable. Thanks, Nick -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
