[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72mGoGpx7EAVUPcGuhVkLit8sB3bR-k1XBDyeM8HBUaDZw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 11:08:36 +0200
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Enrico Weigelt <info@...ux.net>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Masayoshi Mizuma <m.mizuma@...fujitsu.com>,
Shaokun Zhang <zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com>,
Alexios Zavras <alexios.zavras@...el.com>,
Allison Randal <allison@...utok.net>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/16] arm64: prefer __section from compiler_attributes.h
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:20 AM Nick Desaulniers
<ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> This lone patch of the series is just cosmetic, but patch 14/16 fixes
> a real boot issue:
> https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/619
> Miguel, I'd like to get that one landed ASAP; the rest are just for consistency.
Ah, interesting. It would be best to have sent that one independently
to the others, plus adding a commit message mentioning this in
particular. Let's talk about that in the thread.
> Miguel, how do you want to take the rest of these patches? Will picked
> up the arm64 one, I think the SuperH one got picked up. There was
> feedback to add more info to individual commits' commit messages.
Yes, I told Will I would pick up whatever is not already picked up by
individual maintainers.
> I kept these tree wide changes separate to improve the likelihood that
> they'd backport to stable cleanly, but could always squash if you'd
> prefer to have 1 patch instead of a series. Just let me know.
Since you already did the splitting work, let's take advantage of it.
I prefer them to be split anyway, since that gives maintainers a
chance to pick them up individually if they prefer to do so.
Cheers,
Miguel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists