[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180920001024.GD20280@nautica>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 02:10:24 +0200
From: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Eli Friedman <efriedma@...eaurora.org>,
Christopher Li <sparse@...isli.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] Compiler Attributes: naked can be shared
Miguel Ojeda wrote on Thu, Sep 20, 2018:
> > I've not followed so closely, in particular I'm not sure if it's the
> > only problem with arm32 right now, but that is a regression - the
> > general serie is meant as an improvement, but these two patches fix
> > 815f0ddb346c ("include/linux/compiler*.h: make compiler-*.h mutually
> > exclusive") which was taken in 4.19-rc1
> >
> > (Miguel, perhaps a Fixes: tag might help remember that?)
>
> The commit is mentioned in the commit message, although not with the
> Fixes: syntax -- is something now automatically parsing that? I guess
> it is also easier for humans to parse :)
As far as I'm aware, the backport to stable stuff parse these to know up
till how far back they should backport, but it still requires explicit
Cc to the stable@...r list... (not needed here as the "bad" commit never
made it to stable)
I'm not aware of anything else, but as you said, while I now see you
naming the commit now, I managed to miss it earlier and I was somewhat
following this so it's probably also easier on humans :)
> > (If no-one in Cc has anything included in -next I could take them in my
> > 9p branch, but that is quite a bit out of scope from what I advertised
> > this branch as so I think it would be confusing ; I think it might
> > almost be best if Miguel will keep maintaining these in the future to do
> > his own request to inclusion in -next?)
>
> I can ask for my auxdisplay tree (or better, a new one) to be in -next
> and use that (are non-kernel.org trees allowed to be in -next, by the
> way?).
I think a new one would be great, yes.
(my branch is on github, so Stephen does not appear to mind
non-kernel.org trees)
--
Dominique Matinet
Powered by blists - more mailing lists