linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH perf 0/4] Build fixes for gcc 6

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: <20160119224317.GG321@x4>
Date:	Tue, 19 Jan 2016 23:43:17 +0100
From:	Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>
To:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH perf 0/4] Build fixes for gcc 6

On 2016.01.19 at 19:30 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 07:28:51PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> > Em Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:00:50PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf escreveu:
> > > On 2016.01.19 at 21:58 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:40:18PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > > > > On 2016.01.19 at 21:32 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > > > > gcc 6 warns about various things in tools/perf  and with -Werror
> > > > > > these turn into build failures.  One of them is a real though not
> > > > > > very serious bug.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I've already send patches for 1,2 and 4. See:
> > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/12/14/460
> > > > > 
> > > > > Not sure what happened with them. Also your patch number 4 is wrong, you
> > > > > should just delete the semicolon.
> > > > 
> > > > I think that the busy-wait, intentional or not, may be a necessary
> > > > part of the test case.
> > > 
> > > Well, the author of the code thinks otherwise:
> > > 
> > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/12/14/269
> > 
> > Right, I saw those and I think I haven't processed them because I was
> > waiting for those to be broken up in separate patches after I read
> > Ingo's comment about one of them fixing up a real bug, a part that the
> > original autor, mfleming even acked, could you please break it down into
> > multiple patches?
> 
> Alternatively I can do it for the patch acked by Matt and use the other
> patches from Ben, that even have the Fixes: tags (yay, those are
> appreciated!).

Just use what is easiest for you to work with. I don't really mind.

-- 
Markus