[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160426083516.GC364@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 01:35:16 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, jamborm@....gnu.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Himanshu Madhani <himanshu.madhani@...gic.com>,
qla2xxx-upstream@...gic.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: fc: force inlining of wwn conversion functions
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 09:22:46AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > Agree, plus, as I've said before, we have 3-4 weeks before we go final,
> > so we still have some time before a decision has to be made. It looks
> > like the gcc people already have a patch for the compiler, so the
> > distributions could just push that out through channels.
>
> I don't think we can realistically blacklist gcc-4.9.{0,1,2,3},
> gcc-5.{0,1,2,3}.* and gcc-6.0 and require everyone to upgrade to compilers
> that have not been released yet in order to build a linux-4.6 kernel.
Agreed. What about just removing the wrappers? They seem fairly
pointless to start with.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists