linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: clean up the kbuild tree?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5649D3B9.7020701@suse.cz>
Date:	Mon, 16 Nov 2015 14:01:45 +0100
From:	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: clean up the kbuild tree?

Dne 15.11.2015 v 18:58 Andi Kleen napsal(a):
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 11:27:05AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Michal,
>>
>> I notice that the kbuild tree (relative to Linus' tree) only contains
>> lots of merges and these 2 commits from April 2014:
> 
> Really should get in that patch officially. I have a variety of users.
> And it clearly has been tested long enough in linux-next :)
> Michal, enough to just repost it?

So the commit in kbuild.git tree is identical to what is being tested
out of tree? Could you nevertheless provide an updated changelog? One
(and actually only) of Linus' objections was that it was not clear at
all what the actual benefits for the kernel itself are. Do you have some
benchmarks perhaps, where LTO achieves a preformance gain? Also, did the
compile time impact change with gcc 5.x?

Thanks,
Michal
--
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/