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;
Date:   Tue, 24 Dec 2019 02:08:57 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
To:     Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, x86-ml <x86@kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/boot/compressed/64: Define __force_order only when
 CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_BASE is unset
Message-ID: <20191223230857.eafab52y5erfmgab@box>
References: <20191221151813.1573450-1-raj.khem@gmail.com>
 <20191223171043.g54secptjtqkhuve@box>
 <CAMKF1sqvEH94Abv2Ptz3XTCg6hGk9tQ1Dr86RwYn+bpSLQVyxg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMKF1sqvEH94Abv2Ptz3XTCg6hGk9tQ1Dr86RwYn+bpSLQVyxg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 02:25:02PM -0800, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 9:10 AM Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@shutemov.name> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 07:18:13AM -0800, Khem Raj wrote:
> > > Since arch/x86/boot/compressed/Makefile overrides global CFLAGS it loses
> > > -fno-common option which would have caught this
> >
> > If this doesn't cause any visible problems, why bother?
> >
> 
> it does break builds with gcc trunk as of now e.g.
> 
> > Hopefully, we will be able to drop it altogether once we ditch GCC 4.X
> > support.
> >
> 
> gcc10 is switching defaults to -fno-common so we need to solve this one way or
> other, I am not sure if gcc 4.x will be dropped before gcc10 release
> which would be
> in mid of 2020

Okay, it makes sense then. Please include this info into the commit
message.

Also, I wounder if it would be cleaner to define both of them as __weak?

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov