[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190110134139.GE1743@kadam>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 16:41:39 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Eli Friedman <efriedma@...eaurora.org>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>,
linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Christopher <echristo@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] include/linux/compiler*.h: fix OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 09:36:41PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 11:35:52AM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 6:44 PM Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Also for more context, see:
> > > commit 7829fb09a2b4 ("lib: make memzero_explicit more robust against
> > > dead store elimination")
> >
> > By the way, shouldn't that barrier_data() be directly in compiler.h
> > too, since it is for both gcc & clang?
> >
> > > Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
> > >
> > > + Miguel
> > > Miguel, would you mind taking this into your compiler-attributes tree?
> >
> > Sure, at least we get quickly some linux-next time.
>
>
> BTW why linux-next? shouldn't this go into 5.0 and stable? It's a bugfix after all.
>
It doesn't hurt to put things in linux-next for a week and then 5.0 and
-stable. Not a lot of testing happens on linux-next, but some does.
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists