On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 04:26:24AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 08:48:07AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 03:13:47PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:21 AM Nathan Chancellor > > > <natechancellor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:17:15AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:52 AM Nathan Chancellor > > > > > <natechancellor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > Greg, > > > Would you please cherry pick the following 26 patches from mainline to > > > 4.9.y stable branch? (applied top to bottom) > > > > > > I verified that they cherry-pick cleanly, and boot on x86_64 and > > > arm64. I will follow up with more patches cleaning up the warnings, > > > adding arm 32b support, and the backport patches themselves when they > > > do not cherry pick cleanly. > > > https://travis-ci.com/nickdesaulniers/continuous-integration/builds/91934518 > > > > > > 785f11aa595bc3d4e74096cbd598ada54ecc0d81 > > > a37c45cd82e62a361706b9688a984a3a63957321 > > > ebf003f0cfb3705e60d40dedc3ec949176c741af > > > 7dd47b95b0f54f2057d40af6e66d477e3fe95d13 > > > cf0c3e68aa81f992b0301f62e341b710d385bf68 > > > > > > a0ae981eba8f07dbc74bce38fd3a462b69a5bc8e > > > c3f0d0bc5b01ad90c45276952802455750444b4f > > > 6748cb3c299de1ffbe56733647b01dbcc398c419 > > > 433db3e260bc8134d4a46ddf20b3668937e12556 > > > 1f318a8bafcfba9f0d623f4870c4e890fd22e659 > > > > > > 2c4fd1ac3ff167c91272dc43c7bfd2269ef61557 > > > fdb2726f4e61c5e3abc052f547d5a5f6c0dc5504 > > > 9f3f1fd299768782465cb32cdf0dd4528d11f26b > > > 032a2c4f65a2f81c93e161a11197ba19bc14a909 > > > d77698df39a512911586834d303275ea5fda74d0 > > > > > > bfb38988c51e440fd7062ddf3157f7d8b1dd5d70 > > > f4857f4c2ee9aa4e2aacac1a845352b00197fb57 > > > 18d5e6c34a8eda438d5ad8b3b15f42dab01bf05d > > > 760b61d76da6d6a99eb245ab61abf71ca5415cea > > > 0426a4e68f18d75515414361de9e3e1445d2644e > > > > > > 696204faa6e8a318320ebb49d9fa69bc8275644d > > > 91ee5b21ee026c49e4e7483de69b55b8b47042be > > > 8f91869766c00622b2eaa8ee567db4f333b78c1a > > > 9e8730b178a2472fca3123e909d6e69cc8127778 > > > 8c97023cf0518f172b8cb7a9fffc28b89401abbf > > > > > > d135b8b5060ea91dd751ff172d179eb4eab1e966 > > > > Ok, while I did say having a list of git commit ids was ok, I didn't > > realize it was going to be this long :) > > > > If you do have a tested set of patches like this already in your tree, I > > would be more than willing to take a git pull request or a mbox of them > > all, and apply them that way. > > > > As for the format of them, look at how David Miller sends networking > > mbox files, with the "upstream commit" line as the first line of the > > patch, so that we know where the patch came from. > > > > Also, it gives me a better way to review them and see if these really > > are sane enough for the stable tree. > > > > For 4.9 I can sort of understand the request, but for 4.4, that is > > really old now, and no one should be making new devices with that kernel > > release (same for 4.9, but yeah, I know...) So I doubt anyone cares > > about clang backports for 4.4 which is why I only accepted a few tiny > > patches for that in the past into that tree. > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > > Hi Greg, > > While the number of commits seems rather high, all together they are a > rather small set of changes. It's mostly just shuffling around and > extending what is already there. > > Here is an mbox file with all of the patches properly backported with > their respective commit IDs if you would like to do a quick review (and > I think I did this right...). We have verified that it allows both an > arm64 and an x86_64 kernel to boot in QEMU with Clang. > > https://travis-ci.com/ClangBuiltLinux/continuous-integration/jobs/159683234 > https://travis-ci.com/ClangBuiltLinux/continuous-integration/jobs/159683235 Your git list above says "4.9", but the mbox says "4.4", so I'm confused. Which tree is this mbox for? thanks, greg k-h
