linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] codafs: Fix build using bare-metal toolchain

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: <20181121181042.4gzuniz2vzjikpwc@cs.cmu.edu>
Date:   Wed, 21 Nov 2018 13:10:42 -0500
From:   Jan Harkes <jaharkes@...cmu.edu>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@...aro.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Praneeth Bajjuri <praneeth@...com>,
        Ruslan Bilovol <ruslan.bilovol@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] codafs: Fix build using bare-metal toolchain

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 06:41:13PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> I'm not sure how you managed to miss people in this list (perhaps by
> default you have suppress all Cc in your Git configuration), but I
> guess we may gently ask Christoph to apply this in case Jan will not
> appear.

You have got to give me a little more than 10 minutes to respond before
assuming that I would not appear... I don't think I've ignored any
previous emails on this subject and the only issues has been some people
not receiving my responses for unknown reasons (agressive spam filter?).

I have no problem with this patch, have it sitting with some other
non-urgent patches and in case it doesn't appear upstream it should
piggyback with whatever I have to send.

I still don't know why the bare-metal toolchain couldn't just add a
-D__linux__.  I understand that this define is expected to be always
present while compiling kernel headers so that there is no good reason
to even bother testing for it, which is why I have no issue with the
patch. But it seems it would make your life a lot easier if you had it
defined.

Jan