On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 04:41:39PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 09:36:41PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 11:35:52AM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 6:44 PM Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Also for more context, see:
> > > > commit 7829fb09a2b4 ("lib: make memzero_explicit more robust against
> > > > dead store elimination")
> > >
> > > By the way, shouldn't that barrier_data() be directly in compiler.h
> > > too, since it is for both gcc & clang?
> > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > + Miguel
> > > > Miguel, would you mind taking this into your compiler-attributes tree?
> > >
> > > Sure, at least we get quickly some linux-next time.
> >
> >
> > BTW why linux-next? shouldn't this go into 5.0 and stable? It's a bugfix after all.
> >
>
> It doesn't hurt to put things in linux-next for a week and then 5.0 and
> -stable. Not a lot of testing happens on linux-next, but some does.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
I misunderstood. Sure that makes sense.
--
MST
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
