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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date:   Wed, 19 Sep 2018 23:00:37 -0700
From:   Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>
To:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        Eli Friedman <efriedma@codeaurora.org>,
        Christopher Li <sparse@chrisli.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] Compiler Attributes: naked can be shared
In-Reply-To: <CANiq72kS_w7p3Xe9cDCjCA9j1u-zQ1-C4ZX7N8G+AbP4u7SG8w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20180918165542.4691-1-miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
 <20180918165542.4691-3-miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
 <20180918173428.GA21591@kroah.com>
 <CANiq72=ZU61EaoWm2N4G1SZF0QUvzquULo50uEvDRU-hitOJVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180919211458.GA8757@kroah.com>
 <CANiq72kS_w7p3Xe9cDCjCA9j1u-zQ1-C4ZX7N8G+AbP4u7SG8w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6837090afde15cd5ee155dbfabb0d556@agner.ch>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.4
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 19.09.2018 16:00, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:14 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 08:56:04PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>>> Hi Greg,
>>>
>>
>>> Since Linus/Andrew/you
>>> didn't comment on whether you wanted or not this for 4.19, we are
>>> assuming they would go in for 4.20. However, Stefan/Nick/... wanted
>>> this for 4.19 instead, they asked me to extract these patches two
>>> separately for 4.19. I let them comment further on the status of Clang
>>> on arm32.
>>
>> If these do not fix a regression, I don't see how they would be ready
>> for 4.19-final.

Clang on arm32 worked with v4.18 when using multi_v7_defconfig -CONFIG_EFI.

With 815f0ddb346c ("include/linux/compiler*.h: make compiler-*.h mutually
exclusive") it broke on v4.19-rc1. IMHO this is a regression and we should
consider this two patches as a fix for it.


> 
> Ok, I will wait a bit to send v5 until this is sorted out.
> 
> [CC'd Nick, Stefan, Arnd: I just noticed the Reviewed-by/... lines
> were not picked as CC].

Oh yeah thanks, really did not notice the discussion around v2 until
you CC'd me now.

--
Stefan

> 
>>
>>> I am going to send a v5 of the entire series without these two
>>> patches, based on -rc4 (or -next, which one do you prefer? I would say
>>> these patches should be applied early in the -next branches, so that
>>> everyone is ready for the change, given it "touches" every translation
>>> unit).
>>
>> That's up to whomever takes these into their tree for linux-next
>> inclusion.  If you are about to break everything, then you might
>> consider changing your patches so they do not do that :)
>>
> 
> Well, the series shouldn't break anything (famous last words :), even
> if everyone includes those headers. So, in theory, they *could* be
> applied anywhere, anytime; but given they are global changes...
> 
> Cheers,
> Miguel