Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 21

From: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@mellanox.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 21
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 14:36:34 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ff97cde6-44e2-e25d-7bd2-78dbf344fc7b@mellanox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160621182844.GT30927@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On 6/21/2016 2:28 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 07:29:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> >OK, I seem to have a tilepro-linux-gcc-6.1.1 build done. Lets see if I
>> >can build me a kernel with it.
> The below, much larger than desired, patch seems to make it go again.
>
> I had to s/__atomic_fetch/__atomic32_fetch/ to avoid a namespace clash
> with the builtin C11 atomic primitives.
>
> You want me to rename them all to regain consistent naming?

Yes, it's probably the right thing to do.  All the internal routines with "atomic32"
or "atomic64" I assume you mean?

So what's your build process for the cross tools, by the way?  I'm assuming
you're not doing a total bootstrap cross-tool build since you'd need minimal
kernel headers (linux/errno.h or whatever) in that case.  I assume you're using
the host headers to build the cross tool?

So I'm a little confused how the other kernel headers are working out for you,
e.g. <arch/icache.h> is referenced when building the tilegx libgcc.

-- 
Chris Metcalf, Mellanox Technologies
http://www.mellanox.com