[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yw1x38oswrss.fsf@unicorn.mansr.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 21:49:07 +0100
From: Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>, Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Trivial patch monkey <trivial@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
"linux-omap\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel\@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: new binutils needed for arm in 3.12-rc1
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:23:06AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
>> On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>>> It could be as simple as making gas accept an extra argument for
>>> instructions like dsb and just ignoring it.
>>
>> So you prefer I come up with the reversion patches locally and _not_
>> send them upstream?
>
> This is a silly attitude. What you're effectively saying is that we
> are never allowed to use any future ARM instructions in any Linux
> kernel because that might break your precious assembler.
>
> I've got news for you. We're *not* going to listen to that argument.
>
> END OF DISCUSSION (everything else is just a waste of time.)
I fully agree.
--
Måns Rullgård
mans@...sr.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists