From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753910AbdKIQ6N (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:58:13 -0500 Received: from mail-lf0-f65.google.com ([209.85.215.65]:46755 "EHLO mail-lf0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753041AbdKIQ6L (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:58:11 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMbHlD6zLzQlGibafYSEIPWvaVPc5xsx/N+RNr7aUZFxsdsMu/9PD07utLz9l4lcarU1RDFxOEwAqboLRpzfRFs= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20171102212649.108880-1-ndesaulniers@google.com> From: Nick Desaulniers Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 08:58:08 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] kbuild: Set KBUILD_CFLAGS before incl. arch Makefile To: Masahiro Yamada Cc: Behan Webster , =?UTF-8?Q?Jan=2DSimon_M=C3=B6ller?= , Mark Charlebois , Greg Hackmann , Matthias Kaehlcke , Chris Fries , Michal Marek , Linux Kbuild mailing list , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > 2017-11-08 2:37 GMT+09:00 Nick Desaulniers : >> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Masahiro Yamada >> wrote: >>> ld-option is only used for arch/{arm64,powerpc}/Makefile >>> >>> arch/arm64/Makefile: ifeq ($(call ld-option, --fix-cortex-a53-843419),) >>> arch/powerpc/Makefile:LDFLAGS_vmlinux += $(call >>> ld-option,--orphan-handling=warn) >>> >>> I think this patch makes sense when it comes along with >>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10030581/ >> >> Good point. >> >>> but, it is now being blocked by 0-day bot >>> due to a x86 problem. >> >> Looks like that is now resolved (unless 0-day bot strikes again). >> >>> The location of CLANG_GCC_TC define >>> only matters after your patch is applied, right? >> >> By "your patch" referring to the 0-day bot thread, yes. >> >>> Did my request for v2 break anything? >> >> Nothing immediately obvious, and no regressions. It just made this >> patch necessary (along with my previous one) for correctly cross >> compiling with clang for arm64 and powerpc as you point out. >> >>> One more thing: this patch does not apply to kbuild tree. >> >> I absolutely will rebase it on your tree and send a v2. Just to help >> me understand the contribution model better: none of my other patches >> have yet been requested against any trees other than Linus'. Is this >> because of where we are in the release cycle, or that a lot of kbuild >> code has changed, or what? > > > Generally speaking, > a preferred way is to base patches on the subsystem tree. > > Kernel developers are supposed to do their development on linux-next, > but, in reality, many people work on Linus' tree since it is more stable and > git history is fast-forward. > > In many cases, patches based on Linus' tree can apply to sub-systems as well. > > I am happy to fix-up a conflict locally > as long as it is trivial, and there is no other reason for re-spin. > > Unfortunately, Kbuild tree changed the top-level Makefile a lot in > this development cycle. > > If your patch does not apply cleanly, I do not know which context you > are moving the code to. > Also, I found suspicious description in the commit log. > > That's why. > > > -- > Best Regards > Masahiro Yamada Great, thanks for taking time to explain that, I appreciate it. -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers