From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>, kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>, Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>, Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>, Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Dmitriy Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>, Miguel Bernal Marin <miguel.bernal.marin@linux.intel.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, LKP <lkp@01.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/asm: Fix inline asm call constraints for GCC 4.4 Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 09:51:30 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20170929075130.unemx3lbusjd6f6q@gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFxkVPZRAuLQ-xOsdvLZtnJpSAWuW0zUefojSmo=uLsgTg@mail.gmail.com> * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com> > > Fixes: f5caf621ee35 ("x86/asm: Fix inline asm call constraints for Clang") > > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> > > Side note: it's not like I personally need the credit, but in general > I really want people to pick up on who debugged the code and pointed > to the solution. That's often more of the work than the fix itself. > > The kernel test robot report looked to be ignored as a "gcc-4.4 is too > old to worry about" thing. [...] No, and sorry if my first reply grumbling about how old GCC 4.4 is sounded that way! We have to live with compiler bugs no matter how old the compiler is, the release cycles are decoupled to such a degree and external tooling propagates with such high latencies that that's the only sane thing to do. We also officially support GCC 3.2 and later compilers. Had this regression not been resolved within a week or so I was fully ready to queue up a revert commit, no questions asked. Plus it's not just that it's a regression, but adding support for a different compiler is about the _worst_ possible reason to break working compilers ... > [...] People who then step up and analyze the problem are rare as it is. They > need to be credited in the commit logs. > > We don't have any fixed format for that, but it's pretty free-form. So > we have tags like > > Root-caused-by: > Diagnosed-by: > Analyzed-by: > Debugged-by: > Bisected-by: > Fix-suggested-by: > > etc for giving credit to people who figured out some part of a bug > (and, having grepped for this, we also a _shitload_ of miss-spellings > of various things ;) Yeah, I sometimes add such tags, but not routinely. I'll lower the threshold for adding such tags, to create further incentives for people to help debug crashes. Thanks, Ingo
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> To: lkp@lists.01.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/asm: Fix inline asm call constraints for GCC 4.4 Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 09:51:30 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20170929075130.unemx3lbusjd6f6q@gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFxkVPZRAuLQ-xOsdvLZtnJpSAWuW0zUefojSmo=uLsgTg@mail.gmail.com> [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2040 bytes --] * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com> > > Fixes: f5caf621ee35 ("x86/asm: Fix inline asm call constraints for Clang") > > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> > > Side note: it's not like I personally need the credit, but in general > I really want people to pick up on who debugged the code and pointed > to the solution. That's often more of the work than the fix itself. > > The kernel test robot report looked to be ignored as a "gcc-4.4 is too > old to worry about" thing. [...] No, and sorry if my first reply grumbling about how old GCC 4.4 is sounded that way! We have to live with compiler bugs no matter how old the compiler is, the release cycles are decoupled to such a degree and external tooling propagates with such high latencies that that's the only sane thing to do. We also officially support GCC 3.2 and later compilers. Had this regression not been resolved within a week or so I was fully ready to queue up a revert commit, no questions asked. Plus it's not just that it's a regression, but adding support for a different compiler is about the _worst_ possible reason to break working compilers ... > [...] People who then step up and analyze the problem are rare as it is. They > need to be credited in the commit logs. > > We don't have any fixed format for that, but it's pretty free-form. So > we have tags like > > Root-caused-by: > Diagnosed-by: > Analyzed-by: > Debugged-by: > Bisected-by: > Fix-suggested-by: > > etc for giving credit to people who figured out some part of a bug > (and, having grepped for this, we also a _shitload_ of miss-spellings > of various things ;) Yeah, I sometimes add such tags, but not routinely. I'll lower the threshold for adding such tags, to create further incentives for people to help debug crashes. Thanks, Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-29 7:51 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2017-09-28 7:47 [lkp-robot] [x86/asm] f5caf621ee: PANIC:double_fault kernel test robot 2017-09-28 7:47 ` kernel test robot 2017-09-28 7:59 ` Ingo Molnar 2017-09-28 7:59 ` Ingo Molnar 2017-09-28 8:18 ` Peter Zijlstra 2017-09-28 8:18 ` Peter Zijlstra 2017-09-28 8:49 ` Ingo Molnar 2017-09-28 8:49 ` Ingo Molnar 2017-09-28 11:49 ` Peter Zijlstra 2017-09-28 11:49 ` Peter Zijlstra 2017-09-28 16:21 ` Linus Torvalds 2017-09-28 16:21 ` Linus Torvalds 2017-09-28 16:44 ` Josh Poimboeuf 2017-09-28 16:44 ` Josh Poimboeuf 2017-09-28 17:01 ` Josh Poimboeuf 2017-09-28 17:01 ` Josh Poimboeuf 2017-09-28 19:10 ` Josh Poimboeuf 2017-09-28 19:10 ` Josh Poimboeuf 2017-09-28 21:58 ` [PATCH] x86/asm: Fix inline asm call constraints for GCC 4.4 Josh Poimboeuf 2017-09-28 21:58 ` Josh Poimboeuf 2017-09-28 23:53 ` Linus Torvalds 2017-09-28 23:53 ` Linus Torvalds 2017-09-29 1:40 ` Josh Poimboeuf 2017-09-29 1:40 ` Josh Poimboeuf 2017-09-29 8:01 ` Ingo Molnar 2017-09-29 8:01 ` Ingo Molnar 2017-09-29 10:32 ` Ye Xiaolong 2017-09-29 10:32 ` Ye Xiaolong 2017-09-29 7:51 ` Ingo Molnar [this message] 2017-09-29 7:51 ` Ingo Molnar 2017-09-29 15:29 ` Arnd Bergmann 2017-09-29 15:29 ` Arnd Bergmann 2017-09-29 9:27 ` [tip:x86/urgent] " tip-bot for Josh Poimboeuf 2017-09-29 9:27 ` tip-bot for Josh Poimboeuf 2017-09-29 11:18 ` tip-bot for Josh Poimboeuf 2017-09-29 11:18 ` tip-bot for Josh Poimboeuf
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20170929075130.unemx3lbusjd6f6q@gmail.com \ --to=mingo@kernel.org \ --cc=arnd@arndb.de \ --cc=aryabinin@virtuozzo.com \ --cc=dvyukov@google.com \ --cc=glider@google.com \ --cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=lkp@01.org \ --cc=luto@kernel.org \ --cc=miguel.bernal.marin@linux.intel.com \ --cc=mka@chromium.org \ --cc=peterz@infradead.org \ --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \ --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=x86@kernel.org \ --cc=xiaolong.ye@intel.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.