On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:31:35AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > Greg, > I'm in the process of preparing backports for building 4.9 and 4.4 > kernels with Clang. Going off of mka's very helpful: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/22/943, I've prepared the list of SHA's > that were marked UPSTREAM (internal convention used to denote patch > applies cleanly): > https://gist.github.com/nickdesaulniers/fe995f4b7c52af8de1a283c0a53562d9. > But it seems that some of these shas no longer apply cleanly. I was > thus curious: > > 1. May I send you a pull request with the patches properly backported? > I'm happy to do the work, just want a green light before backporting > all of these patches. > 2. Should I denote in any way if I had to modify any patch to get it > to apply cleanly? This helps in code review, IMO. If so, what > convention should I use? I usually add my initials with a small note for anything non-trivial like: https://github.com/nathanchance/continuous-integration/blob/sandbox/patches/4.4/arm64/0015-kbuild-fix-linker-feature-test-macros-when-cross-com.patch I meant to post this on GitHub earlier but was wiped out from work. I did a successful backport for arm64 on top of 4.4.163 a couple of days ago that is based on the work Matthias did with some of the newer fixes that have cropped up. Hopefully it is of some use :) https://github.com/nathanchance/continuous-integration/tree/sandbox/patches/4.4/arm64 https://travis-ci.com/nathanchance/continuous-integration/jobs/159318688 Thanks! Nathan > > -- > Thanks, > ~Nick Desaulniers
