linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] compiler-gcc: get back Clang build

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]

Message-ID: <f51e6c2dcd83aae2af8d9e1d0b40e76e6c680446.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Aug 2018 16:32:09 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc:     asmadeus@...ewreck.org,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, dwmw@...zon.co.uk,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        daniel@...earbox.net, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] compiler-gcc: get back Clang build

On Wed, 2018-08-22 at 16:05 -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:

Hey Nick.

> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 1:50 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > A mild suggestion about the patch would be to break it up into
> > 2 patches to improve how people read and review them.
> > 
> > 1 include/linux/compiler-*
> > 2 everything else
> > 
> > Yes, some kernel configs might not build properly between 1 and 2
> > but that likely doesn't matter as those configs probably don't
> > build before 1 either.
> 
> If we ordered the patches so that the "everything else" went in first,
> it would not be a problem.  The first patch would just be the checks
> that GCC_VERSION is defined.
> 
> In general, I'm happy to split patches, but in this suggested case, it
> only shaves off 26 lines from the main body of work.

No worries, I rarely care _that_ much about code, but
seeing the subject with compiler-gcc and the first
part of the patch about arch/ was a bit off-putting.

You're the one doing the work here.
Do what you think best.