Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6BFCC65BAF for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 21:22:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AE9C20851 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 21:22:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="fOvgtLfy" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9AE9C20851 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727765AbeLLVW7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Dec 2018 16:22:59 -0500 Received: from mail-oi1-f196.google.com ([209.85.167.196]:43690 "EHLO mail-oi1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727594AbeLLVW6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Dec 2018 16:22:58 -0500 Received: by mail-oi1-f196.google.com with SMTP id u18so16268477oie.10 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 13:22:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=zKeuYahfMsm+v0+tLJYsHVPzjV2rGreMpPdJKGX93QU=; b=fOvgtLfyRemNKeoEQgkN+oiRkeWJJA6tAFY1yhQzUOLnwwaK9Mdd40kfQW9YGBA+Ua FZdWfJOfuTqnvVJy/FmfXMb50vcUmPPJh61DaVemLYb7BODBA6+nDC20AqUNjsnr8c9/ LuqshEoa66BtLyYZqT0PCHxC6/UUE+N6lSi0cHQkMJb7ZpJZQsTbb3L9hM3etLLE9Yec Q5+jhERSyXz9zIRtP9rQOQ8BCkLnPdCdhiIQhE3rFVhaA3+gVA48woFc7r3JT/sEdq+S YA7XdIu137/jmW0VC7AifIr9cHNcSsDtEl5pNef7N19VNAMJ7lLh4VNcpsNTmA8VDW6J 5Zew== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zKeuYahfMsm+v0+tLJYsHVPzjV2rGreMpPdJKGX93QU=; b=S+xhebm3n9JSC78plaW4NGo1FKRodrIdNwUImmCi8Yix0nQN7TG445aVTMiQFTth+M QeTGitUcizlFUnIow5ggQX6lYQTbVskATlznkrLpH19cACo0Fea5QOB/gV8jnNv9Ya3A RQpwyZDd1g5iIIN8Om7+dNjfSLFhXGXh+vb21IadXvkW1R+9/WFU9oG4T1QAG0kur0HJ oX10qVqjnXkKWMs1jOA36t4fOcTDRicsGcwlGicHa8eemCLlIwzCflUQFM6PMtyKODfe AjSjzFLF5q3G3ldGV44QmyEGe09enrHX93llRJa8HAoU4jrCFl+4PPmWqx7GA/ZH2lf0 yTjg== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWaXGq13GSoxjVlhgRQmu30TghzROui3IcZdk97KFJcXLw+OU/tc vuvjVyMXxu5qC8qBjCR4P3ll9xSOl1GUUG29wEU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/VhIWvUsmmZ6Gfb4T7T/5AJtQY8tkfYkJG0gNz1KWQJMIIcYqtpP58YuY5PFZate5573i9czDAeV6hQaczhpWQ= X-Received: by 2002:aca:b882:: with SMTP id i124mr1420012oif.127.1544649776717; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 13:22:56 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20181212204810.GA30878@r> In-Reply-To: <20181212204810.GA30878@r> From: Austin Morton Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 16:22:45 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] sbc: Use extended inline assembly for armv6 primitives To: r yang Cc: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org Resent due to HTML rejected. Hi, I am the original patch author. I submitted the patch to the mailing list but received no response from a maintainer. I am using the sbc codec in an embedded project and have to maintain other patches for it anyway, so it was of low priority to get the fix merged for me. I previously submitted another arm related patch to the sbc library and it was also not merged (although it did get an initial response, just no follow through). I get the impression the maintainers are simply busy elsewhere - the sbc library code has remain unchanged aside from a single line bugfix since 2014. I also submitted a bug to gcc, since the issue was clearly a regression in a newer compiler version. You can find that bug here: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85593 There was actually a patch made for the bug recently - so it may soon be resolved in gcc trunk. Although that doesn't do much to fix the issue for anyone using the compiler they have today. I have not had opportunity to test the patch for gcc to see if it does indeed fix the issue in the sbc code unfortunately. Cheers, Austin Morton