On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 08:56:04PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 7:34 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 06:55:42PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > >> The naked attribute is supported by at least gcc >= 4.6 (for ARM, > >> which is the only current user), gcc >= 8 (for x86), clang >= 3.1 > >> and icc >= 13. See https://godbolt.org/z/350Dyc > >> > >> Therefore, move it out of compiler-gcc.h so that the definition > >> is shared by all compilers. > >> > >> This also fixes Clang support for ARM32 --- 815f0ddb346c > >> ("include/linux/compiler*.h: make compiler-*.h mutually exclusive"). > > > > So, with this applied, does clang really build an arm32 kernel > > successfully? No other problem at all? And this isn't really a > > regression, arm32 never really worked with clang yet, right? > > > > To recap a bit: these two patches come from the "Compiler Attributes" > series which is meant as a general improvement. Ok, so that's not for regressions, that's fine. > Since Linus/Andrew/you > didn't comment on whether you wanted or not this for 4.19, we are > assuming they would go in for 4.20. However, Stefan/Nick/... wanted > this for 4.19 instead, they asked me to extract these patches two > separately for 4.19. I let them comment further on the status of Clang > on arm32. If these do not fix a regression, I don't see how they would be ready for 4.19-final. > I am going to send a v5 of the entire series without these two > patches, based on -rc4 (or -next, which one do you prefer? I would say > these patches should be applied early in the -next branches, so that > everyone is ready for the change, given it "touches" every translation > unit). That's up to whomever takes these into their tree for linux-next inclusion. If you are about to break everything, then you might consider changing your patches so they do not do that :) good luck! greg k-h
