Andy, btw, I'm observing some strange mail thread behavior here. I'm pretty sure you responded to Jan, but he's not in the recipient list in your last mail. If you check Jan's mail (the one you responded to), you can notice new "reply-to" field (or "Mail-Followup-To:", in raw mail). When you respond to his mail, you respond to that list. But Jan is not in that list. That may be the cause of confusion we're seeing here. Anyway, mail settings aside, I'm glad this patch has found its way to upstream. Thanks everyone. On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 10:07 PM Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 3:04 PM Jan Harkes <jaharkes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 02:01:04PM +0200, Sam Protsenko wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 8:34 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 10:05:49PM +0200, Sam Protsenko wrote: > > > >> Hi Greg, > > > >> > > > >> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 10:03 PM, Sam Protsenko > > > >> <semen.protsenko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> > The kernel is self-contained project and can be built with bare-metal > > > >> > toolchain. But bare-metal toolchain doesn't define __linux__. Because of > > > >> > this u_quad_t type is not defined when using bare-metal toolchain and > > > >> > codafs build fails. This patch fixes it by defining u_quad_t type > > > >> > unconditionally. > > > >> > > > > >> > Signed-off-by: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > >> > --- > > > >> > > > >> Can you please pull this one, if this applicable? I sent it a while > > > >> ago, but I guess it got lost in mailing list. It might be also > > > >> applicable to stable branch (as it fixes allmodconfig build for ARM > > > >> with bare-metal toolchain). > > > > > > > > Why are you asking me? I'm not the maintainer of this file :( > > > > > > > > confused, > > > > > > > > > > Sorry to bother you. I just thought you might be interested in this > > > one, as it fixes build for "allmodconfig" configuration, hence it can > > > be related to stable branch. Also, maintainers didn't respond to that > > > patch, so I'm kinda dead in the water. > > > > > > Anyway, will try to ping maintainers one more time. > > > > I thought I had responded, > > Oh, this one also was in Spam. > > > I didn't see a reason why one would want to > > compile non-userspace kernel headers outside of the context of the > > kernel and if you do have to do that why not just add -D__linux__. > > > > However, I can also see the point that anything not in uapi/ pretty much > > by definition will be compiled with __linux__ defined so it actually > > doesn't make a discernable difference to just drop the ifdef and I'm > > fine with a patch like this. > > > > These trivial patches typically get picked up through kernel janitors, > > or maybe an akpm linux-next patch queue. In fact, I'm not even sure if > > there is a designated person I would be passing updates to, I've sent > > patches to akpm, viro, hellwig, linus, and gregkh at various times. > > % scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f include/linux/coda.h > Jan Harkes <jaharkes@xxxxxxxxxx> (maintainer:CODA FILE SYSTEM) > coda@xxxxxxxxxx (maintainer:CODA FILE SYSTEM) > codalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (open list:CODA FILE SYSTEM) > linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (open list) > > Aren't you a maintainer? > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko
