From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf1-f169.google.com ([209.85.210.169]:46001 "EHLO mail-pf1-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728979AbeKTJj7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Nov 2018 04:39:59 -0500 Received: by mail-pf1-f169.google.com with SMTP id g62so12311232pfd.12 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2018 15:13:59 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20181119185213.GA29256@flashbox> <20181119192059.GA31554@flashbox> In-Reply-To: <20181119192059.GA31554@flashbox> From: Nick Desaulniers Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 15:13:47 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Clang backports for 4.9 and 4.4 To: Greg KH Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, Sandeep Patil , Matthias Kaehlcke , Nathan Chancellor , Alistair Strachan Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:21 AM Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:17:15AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:52 AM Nathan Chancellor > > 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? Greg, Would you please cherry pick the following 26 patches from mainline to 4.9.y stable branch? (applied top to bottom) I verified that they cherry-pick cleanly, and boot on x86_64 and arm64. I will follow up with more patches cleaning up the warnings, adding arm 32b support, and the backport patches themselves when they do not cherry pick cleanly. https://travis-ci.com/nickdesaulniers/continuous-integration/builds/91934518 785f11aa595bc3d4e74096cbd598ada54ecc0d81 a37c45cd82e62a361706b9688a984a3a63957321 ebf003f0cfb3705e60d40dedc3ec949176c741af 7dd47b95b0f54f2057d40af6e66d477e3fe95d13 cf0c3e68aa81f992b0301f62e341b710d385bf68 a0ae981eba8f07dbc74bce38fd3a462b69a5bc8e c3f0d0bc5b01ad90c45276952802455750444b4f 6748cb3c299de1ffbe56733647b01dbcc398c419 433db3e260bc8134d4a46ddf20b3668937e12556 1f318a8bafcfba9f0d623f4870c4e890fd22e659 2c4fd1ac3ff167c91272dc43c7bfd2269ef61557 fdb2726f4e61c5e3abc052f547d5a5f6c0dc5504 9f3f1fd299768782465cb32cdf0dd4528d11f26b 032a2c4f65a2f81c93e161a11197ba19bc14a909 d77698df39a512911586834d303275ea5fda74d0 bfb38988c51e440fd7062ddf3157f7d8b1dd5d70 f4857f4c2ee9aa4e2aacac1a845352b00197fb57 18d5e6c34a8eda438d5ad8b3b15f42dab01bf05d 760b61d76da6d6a99eb245ab61abf71ca5415cea 0426a4e68f18d75515414361de9e3e1445d2644e 696204faa6e8a318320ebb49d9fa69bc8275644d 91ee5b21ee026c49e4e7483de69b55b8b47042be 8f91869766c00622b2eaa8ee567db4f333b78c1a 9e8730b178a2472fca3123e909d6e69cc8127778 8c97023cf0518f172b8cb7a9fffc28b89401abbf d135b8b5060ea91dd751ff172d179eb4eab1e966 -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers