From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl1-f193.google.com ([209.85.214.193]:44217 "EHLO mail-pl1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726347AbeKTFm0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Nov 2018 00:42:26 -0500 Received: by mail-pl1-f193.google.com with SMTP id s5-v6so15015433plq.11 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2018 11:17:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20181119185213.GA29256@flashbox> In-Reply-To: <20181119185213.GA29256@flashbox> From: Nick Desaulniers Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 11:17:15 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Clang backports for 4.9 and 4.4 To: Nathan Chancellor Cc: Greg KH , stable@vger.kernel.org, Sandeep Patil , Matthias Kaehlcke Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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? > > 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. > > 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." -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers