Hi Leo, On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 09:35:22AM +0800, Leo Yan wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 09:23:23PM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 09:12:14PM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > > From: Leo Yan <leo.yan@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > commit 95c6fe970a0160cb770c5dce9f80311b42d030c0 upstream. > > [...] > > > That's a fallout on my end. Should have said: This is for 4.19 > > specifically to be queued. > > > > Background: in > > https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20201014135627.GA3698844@xxxxxxxxx/ > > 168200b6d6ea0cb5765943ec5da5b8149701f36a was queued up for v4.19.y but > > the prerequeisite commit was not included and so resulted in build > > failures with gcc 8.3.0. > > > > The commit was later on reverted but in this thread it was asked to > > actually make it possible to compile the file as well with more recent > > gcc versions. > > > > Those two patches to be applied in 4.19.y only pick up a backport of > > the rerequisite commit 95c6fe970a0160cb770c5dce9f80311b42d030c0 (PATCH > > 1) followed up by the cherry-pick of > > 168200b6d6ea0cb5765943ec5da5b8149701f36a again. > > Since the patch 01 is minor tweaked due to context difference, I > manually compared it with original patch and looks good to me. > > Thank you for the back porting, Welcome, given I'm unfamiliar with the codebasis for perf the explicit acknowledgement nothing looks wrong was appreciated. Regards, Salvatore
