On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:14 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 08:56:04PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: >> Hi Greg, >> > >> 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. Ok, I will wait a bit to send v5 until this is sorted out. [CC'd Nick, Stefan, Arnd: I just noticed the Reviewed-by/... lines were not picked as CC]. > >> 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 :) > Well, the series shouldn't break anything (famous last words :), even if everyone includes those headers. So, in theory, they *could* be applied anywhere, anytime; but given they are global changes... Cheers, Miguel
