Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180713150701.GA3049@arm.com>
References: <20180709200956.31158-1-labbott@redhat.com> <20180710090125.GA28924@arm.com>
 <fcd8d97b6714d787297f1b362558e7a68855a1da.camel@paulk.fr> <20180710093615.GA30095@arm.com>
 <20180713145910.2mlzip5ssk72cleo@localhost> <20180713150701.GA3049@arm.com>
From:   Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>
Date:   Fri, 13 Jul 2018 08:15:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOesGMhAe=r=TNuTr_u59h2YwL7A_KzEooGtWUc0jM9jfHOO-w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "arm64: Use aarch64elf and aarch64elfb emulation
 mode variants"
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc:     Paul Kocialkowski <contact@paulk.fr>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Linux ARM Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 8:07 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> Hi Olof,
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 07:59:10AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:36:16AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:30:39AM +0200, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
>> > > On Tue, 2018-07-10 at 10:01 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
>> > > > Thanks, Laura.
>> > > >
>> > > > I'll take this as a fix, and add a comment to the Makefile to justify
>> > > > why we need the linux target.
>> > >
>> > > So this comes down to either breaking fedora/debian toolchains (that
>> > > don't support elf emulation mode) or breaking bare-metal toolchains
>> > > (that don't support linux emulation mode).
>> > >
>> > > Since Linux is a bare-metal project that does not technically require
>> > > the linux target (who said using "Linux" for all things is confusing?),
>> > > I think it should aim for the elf target in the long term.
>> > >
>> > > But well, breaking Linux build in common distros isn't good either, so I
>> > > guess it makes sense to revert this while distros toolchains are being
>> > > fixed. Hopefully, it won't take too long.
>> > >
>> > > What do you think?
>> >
>> > Yes, we need to revert the change since it's a regression otherwise. I think
>> > the best course of action here would be to find a way that we can either
>> > tell the linker that it doesn't need the missing linker scripts because
>> > we're providing our own, or find a way to pass different LD flags depending
>> > on whether or not we have a linux toolchain.
>> >
>> > For now, I've pushed the revert to for-next/fixes.
>>
>> Hi Will,
>>
>> This is regressed in mainline as well. But I think we can just use a (slightly
>> improved) ld-option here? I checked it for x86 regression since it uses the
>> one-argument version. Patch is here, can you pick that up instead and get it in
>> for 4.18-rc?
>
> I already sent the revert to Linus, but I can certainly queue the ld-option
> for 4.19 if we pick up some more tested-bys. Could you send it out as its
> own patch please?

Definitely, separate email shortly.


-Olof