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, 31 Mar 2020 14:09:17 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Dirk =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=FCller?= <dmueller@suse.com>
Cc:     Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>,
        Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.5 102/170] scripts/dtc: Remove redundant YYLOC global
 declaration
Message-ID: <20200331120917.GA1617997@kroah.com>
References: <20200331085423.990189598@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20200331085435.053942582@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20200331095323.GA32667@ubuntu-m2-xlarge-x86>
 <20200331100238.GA1204199@kroah.com>
 <5B6493BE-F9FE-41A4-A88A-5E4DF5BCE098@suse.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <5B6493BE-F9FE-41A4-A88A-5E4DF5BCE098@suse.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 01:45:09PM +0200, Dirk M?ller wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> >> $ sed -i 's;scripts/dtc/dtc-lexer.l;scripts/dtc/dtc-lexer.lex.c_shipped;g' \
> >> queue-{4.4,4.9,4.14}/scripts-dtc-remove-redundant-yyloc-global-declaration.patch
> >> If you would prefer a set of patches, let me know.
> > Should I just drop the patch from 4.4, 4.9, and 4.14 instead?
> 
> as the original author of the patch, I am not sure why it was backported to the LTS releases (unless enablement for gcc 10.x or
> other new toolchains is a requirement, which I'm not aware of). 

Keeping the older kernels building with newer compilers is something
that we do.  It's needed as our build systems "age-out" the older
compilers a lot :)

> However I think the sed above on the *patch* means that the patch will *only* modify the generated sources, not the input sources. I think
> it would be better to patch both *input* and *generated* sources, or backport the generate-at-runtime patch as well (which might be
> even further outside the stable policy). 

What do you mean by "input sources" here?

> Not knowing why it was backported, I would suggest to just dequeue the patch from the older trees. 

If I drop it for now, I'll have to add it back when gcc10 is pushed out
to my build systems and laptops :(

thanks,

greg k-h