[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160418141241.gcgfawrtnmfamz6t@treble>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 09:12:41 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, jamborm@....gnu.org
Subject: Re: This patch triggers a bad gcc bug (was Re: [PATCH] force
inlining of some byteswap operations)
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 04:07:51PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 18 April 2016 08:39:32 Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >
> > I agree. So how should we work around the bug in this case? There have
> > been several suggestions:
> >
> > - change wwn_to_u64() to __always_inline
> >
> > - change qla2x00_get_host_fabric_name() to skip the unnecessary call to
> > wwn_to_u64()
> >
> > - revert one of the two commits:
> > bc27fb68aaad ("include/uapi/linux/byteorder, swab: force inlining of some byteswap operations")
> > ef3fb2422ffe ("scsi: fc: use get/put_unaligned64 for wwn access")
>
> What about the patch to change get_unaligned_be64() that I posted?
>
> I think we want to merge that anyway, I just don't know if that helps
> with this particular problem as well.
I replied to your other email about that -- it doesn't seem to help this
issue.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists