[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170317180350.63jjysejk2i6vkon@pd.tnic>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:03:50 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Michael Davidson <md@...gle.com>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] md/raid10, LLVM: get rid of variable length array
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 01:32:00PM +0100, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> > IIUC there's only a handful of VLAIS instances in LLVM code, why not
> Sorry, "kernel code", not "LLVM code".
> > just drop them for the sake of better code portability?
And what happens if someone else adds a variable thing like this
somewhere else, builds with gcc, everything's fine and patch gets
applied? Or something else llvm can't stomach.
Does that mean there'll be the occasional, every-so-often whack-a-mole
patchset from someone, fixing the kernel build with llvm yet again?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists