On 19.09.2018 16:00, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> 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.
Clang on arm32 worked with v4.18 when using multi_v7_defconfig -CONFIG_EFI.
With 815f0ddb346c ("include/linux/compiler*.h: make compiler-*.h mutually
exclusive") it broke on v4.19-rc1. IMHO this is a regression and we should
consider this two patches as a fix for it.
>
> 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].
Oh yeah thanks, really did not notice the discussion around v2 until
you CC'd me now.
--
Stefan
>
>>
>>> 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
