On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:37 AM Dominique Martinet
<asmadeus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote on Thu, Sep 20, 2018:
> > "Fixes:" is not just for stable, we use it wherever we have a patch that
> > we know fixes a problem introduced in another patch.
> >
> > For this instance, I think we should just revert the offending patch,
> > which should resolve the issue for everyone and then you can try to redo
> > your series to get it right the next time.
> >
> > Sound good?
>
> Except that 815f0ddb346c ("include/linux/compiler*.h: make compiler-*.h
> mutually exclusive") itself fixes cafa0010cd51 ("Raise the minimum
> required gcc version to 4.6"), which breaks clang altogether (as used by
> example by bcc for most BPF programs, that I caught before -rc1 got
> released so we got both in rc1)
>
> I'm not aware of anything that would break if both were to be reverted,
> I have no opinion on which way to go.
I guess reverting them makes no difference for gcc >= 4.6.
For older compilers (which were declared unsupported by cafa0010cd51),
you also need
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180814160208.4f4dd7ca142912f5894ddddd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
Been there, done that, happy gcc-4.1.2 ;-)
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
