[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <657119d71970e33d599b3fe9e596e8f133449d85.camel@perches.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2020 12:05:38 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
Clang-Built-Linux ML <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH next-20200930] treewide: Convert macro and uses of
__section(foo) to __section("foo")
On Thu, 2020-10-01 at 12:15 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> Hi Joe,
Buenas Miguel.
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 12:56 AM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > So I installed the powerpc cross compiler, and
> > nope, that doesn't work, it makes a mess.
>
> Thanks a lot for reviving the script and sending the treewide cleanup!
No charge...
I think the end result is cleaner and more obvious.
> > So it looks like the best option is to exclude these
> > 2 files from conversion.
>
> Agreed. Nevertheless, is there any reason arch/powerpc/* should not be
> compiling cleanly with compiler.h? (CC'ing the rest of the PowerPC
> reviewers and ML).
That's not a can of worms I care to open.
Perhaps the powerpc folk can do some fishing.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists