Re: Clang backports for 4.9 and 4.4

From: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	stable@vger.kernel.org, Sandeep Patil <sspatil@google.com>,
	Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: Clang backports for 4.9 and 4.4
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 12:20:59 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181119192059.GA31554@flashbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKwvOdk_HFvct-Asbkiz4swBVHWoX5YxLatYMcmgjfPDy8vZcQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:17:15AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:52 AM Nathan Chancellor
> <natechancellor@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:31:35AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > > Greg,
> > > I'm in the process of preparing backports for building 4.9 and 4.4
> > > kernels with Clang.  Going off of mka's very helpful:
> > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/22/943, I've prepared the list of SHA's
> > > that were marked UPSTREAM (internal convention used to denote patch
> > > applies cleanly):
> > > https://gist.github.com/nickdesaulniers/fe995f4b7c52af8de1a283c0a53562d9.
> > > But it seems that some of these shas no longer apply cleanly.  I was
> > > thus curious:
> > >
> > > 1. May I send you a pull request with the patches properly backported?
> > > I'm happy to do the work, just want a green light before backporting
> > > all of these patches.
> > > 2. Should I denote in any way if I had to modify any patch to get it
> > > to apply cleanly?  This helps in code review, IMO.  If so, what
> > > convention should I use?
> >
> > I usually add my initials with a small note for anything non-trivial
> > like: https://github.com/nathanchance/continuous-integration/blob/sandbox/patches/4.4/arm64/0015-kbuild-fix-linker-feature-test-macros-when-cross-com.patch
> 
> Got it, thanks!
> 
> >
> > I meant to post this on GitHub earlier but was wiped out from work. I
> > did a successful backport for arm64 on top of 4.4.163 a couple of days
> > ago that is based on the work Matthias did with some of the newer fixes
> > that have cropped up. Hopefully it is of some use :)
> 
> Great! Let's keep this series, and wait to hear back from GKH how he
> wants the patches (your set looks like it's easily mailed if Greg does
> not want a PR).  I'll start working on one for 4.9 only then.  Also,
> it would be good to add patches for x86_64.
> 

Yes, I will work on x86_64 now.

> >
> > https://github.com/nathanchance/continuous-integration/tree/sandbox/patches/4.4/arm64
> > https://travis-ci.com/nathanchance/continuous-integration/jobs/159318688
> 
> Just a side note: I think this is an awesome side effect of our CI
> setup. "Here's a hyperlink to a log that shows that this builds AND
> boots in qemu."
> 

Very much so!

Thanks,
Nathan

> -- 
> Thanks,
> ~Nick Desaulniers