Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210105154726.GD1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk> <20210106115359.GB26994@C02TD0UTHF1T.local>
 <20210106135253.GJ1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk> <20210106172033.GA2165@willie-the-truck>
 <20210106223223.GM1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk> <20210107111841.GN1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
 <20210107124506.GO1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk> <CAK8P3a2TXPfFpgy+XjpDzOqt1qpDxufwiD-BLNbn4W_jpGp98g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210107133747.GP1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20210107133747.GP1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 7 Jan 2021 22:20:38 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a2J8fLjPhyV0XUeuRBdSo6rz1gU4wrQRyfzKQvwhf22ag@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Aarch64 EXT4FS inode checksum failures - seems to be weak memory
 ordering issues
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:37 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin
<linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 02:16:25PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 1:47 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin
> > <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > The gcc bugzilla mentions backports into gcc-linaro, but I do not see
> > them in my git history.

Correction: I looked in the wrong branch, gcc-linaro does have it, as
does the Android gcc, which was recently still at 4.9 before they dropped it
in favor of clang.

> So, do we raise the minimum gcc version for the kernel as a whole to 5.1
> or just for aarch64?

I'd personally love to see gcc-5 as the global minimum version, as that
would let us finally use --std=gnu11 features instead of gnu89. [There are
a couple of useful features that are incompatible with gnu89, and
gnu99/gnu11 support in gcc didn't like the kernel sources]

If we make it arm64 specific, I'd propose only making it a build-time
warning instead of an error, as there are no other benefits to increasing
the minimum version if gcc-4.9 is still an option for other architectures,
and most gcc-4.9 users (Android, Red Hat and everyone using gcc-linaro)
have backported this bugfix already.

         Arnd