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:
- 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/...
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/... 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."