linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/RFC] Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the luto-misc 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]

Date:	Fri, 22 Jul 2016 16:57:34 -0300
From:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the
 luto-misc tree

Em Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 02:44:17PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf escreveu:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 04:36:55PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 02:19:20PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf escreveu:
> > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 11:37:39AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > > I.e. with the two patches I mentioned, that are equivalent to the last patch I
> > > > sent to Stephen for testing, we would end up with HOSTARCH=powerpc and
> > > > ARCH=x86, no?

> > > Thanks for spelling it out, that helped a lot.

> > Glad you liked it, I had to do it for my own sanity :-)

> > And something that gave me mixed feelings was an e-mail from the kbuild
> > test bot that noticed my perf/core changes and said that the build was
> > broken for "make ARCH=x86_64", so I had to reinstate this part:

> > ifeq ($(ARCH),x86_64)
> > ARCH := x86
> > endif

> > Because, as you say, 'make ARCH=x86' works :-\ I think it will not be
> > needed with your patch, right? I'm checking your patch below right now,

> Yeah, that shouldn't be needed with my patch.  I think either would
> work, but my patch is more of a permanent solution.

Sure, I left it there because then we don't have bisection broke at that
fix I made, i.e. 'make ARCH=x86_64' works at that point too.

I applied your patch and will push it to Ingo, now we must cross our
fingers so that Stephen doesn't come back to us once more telling it is
still broken :o)

Best regards,

- Arnaldo