[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180706193408.GA1705@trogon.sfo.coreos.systems>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 15:34:08 -0400
From: Benjamin Gilbert <bgilbert@...hat.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Gabriel C <nix.or.die@...il.com>, linux-x86_64@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
bero@...dev.ch, Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>
Subject: Re: 4.17.x won't boot due to "x86/boot/compressed/64: Handle 5-level
paging boot if kernel is above 4G"
On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 11:11:10AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> There are valid use cases to override the flags. I use it sometimes too,
> and know some other people do to.
>
> But you need to know what you're doing.
>
> Perhaps a warning during build would be reasonable. So if you ask
> for a build log you would see it.
In our case, the package is presumably passing LDFLAGS="" to override the
LDFLAGS environment variable already set by the packaging system. This has
worked for years without a problem.
--Benjamin Gilbert
Powered by blists - more mailing lists