On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 14:51, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 1:05 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 at 17:07, Russell King - ARM Linux admin
> > <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 05:02:09PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 4:16 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin
> > > > <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 02:37:21PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Aha. So shall we submit this to Russell? I figure that his git will not
> > > > > > build *without* the changes from mmotm?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That tree isn't using git either is it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is this one of those cases where we should ask Stephen R
> > > > > > to carry this patch on top of -next until the merge window?
> > > > >
> > > > > Another solution would be to drop 9017/2 ("Enable KASan for ARM")
> > > > > until the following merge window, and queue up the non-conflicing
> > > > > ARM KASan fixes in my "misc" branch along with the rest of KASan,
> > > > > and the conflicting patches along with 9017/2 in the following
> > > > > merge window.
> > > > >
> > > > > That means delaying KASan enablement another three months or so,
> > > > > but should result in less headaches about how to avoid build
> > > > > breakage with different bits going through different trees.
> > > > >
> > > > > Comments?
> > > >
> > > > I suppose I would survive deferring it. Or we could merge the
> > > > smaller enablement patch towards the end of the merge
> > > > window once the MM changes are in.
> > > >
> > > > If it is just *one* patch in the MM tree I suppose we could also
> > > > just apply that one patch also to the ARM tree, and then this
> > > > fixup on top. It does look a bit convoluted in the git history with
> > > > two hashes and the same patch twice, but it's what I've done
> > > > at times when there was no other choice that doing that or
> > > > deferring development. It works as long as the patches are
> > > > textually identical: git will cope.
> > >
> > > I thought there was a problem that if I applied the fix then my tree
> > > no longer builds without the changes in -mm?
> > >
> >
> > Indeed. Someone is changing the __alias() wrappers [for no good reason
> > afaict] in a way that does not allow for new users of those wrappers
> > to come in concurrently.
> >
> > Hency my suggestion to switch to the raw __attribute__((alias("..")))
> > notation for the time being, and switch back to __alias() somewhere
> > after v5.11-rc1.
> >
> > Or we might add this to the file in question
> >
> > #undef __alias
> > #define __alias(symbol) __attribute__((__alias__(symbol)))
> >
> > and switch to the quoted versions of the identifier. Then we can just
> > drop these two lines again later, after v5.11-rc1
>
> I was under the impression that there was some "post-next"
> trick that mmot apply this patch after -next has been merged
> so it's solved now?
>
Yes, it appears that [0] has been picked up, I guess we weren't cc'ed
on the version that was sent to akpm [which is fine btw, although a
followup reply here that things are all good now would have been
appreciated]
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20201109001712.3384097-1-natechancellor@xxxxxxxxx/
