| Message ID | 20181030202713.26203-1-semen.protsenko@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2] codafs: Fix build using bare-metal toolchain | expand |
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:27 PM Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@linaro.org> wrote: > > The kernel is self-contained project and can be built with bare-metal > toolchain. But bare-metal toolchain doesn't define __linux__. Because of > this u_quad_t type is not defined when using bare-metal toolchain and > codafs build fails. This patch fixes it by defining u_quad_t type > unconditionally. > > Cc: Jan Harkes <jaharkes@cs.cmu.edu> > Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> > Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@linaro.org> > --- > include/linux/coda.h | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/coda.h b/include/linux/coda.h > index d30209b9cef8..0ca0c83fdb1c 100644 > --- a/include/linux/coda.h > +++ b/include/linux/coda.h > @@ -58,8 +58,7 @@ Mellon the rights to redistribute these changes without encumbrance. > #ifndef _CODA_HEADER_ > #define _CODA_HEADER_ > > -#if defined(__linux__) > typedef unsigned long long u_quad_t; > -#endif > + > #include <uapi/linux/coda.h> > #endif > -- > 2.19.1 > + Jan Harkes, + Ruslan Bilovol Hi Jan, Can you please apply this? Nobody seems to be interested in taking this patch, so I'm not sure how to proceed further. Please advice. Thanks!
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:31 PM Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:27 PM Sam Protsenko > <semen.protsenko@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > The kernel is self-contained project and can be built with bare-metal > > toolchain. But bare-metal toolchain doesn't define __linux__. Because of > > this u_quad_t type is not defined when using bare-metal toolchain and > > codafs build fails. This patch fixes it by defining u_quad_t type > > unconditionally. > > > > Cc: Jan Harkes <jaharkes@cs.cmu.edu> > > Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> > > Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> I'm not sure how you managed to miss people in this list (perhaps by default you have suppress all Cc in your Git configuration), but I guess we may gently ask Christoph to apply this in case Jan will not appear. > > Signed-off-by: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@linaro.org> > > --- > > include/linux/coda.h | 3 +-- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/coda.h b/include/linux/coda.h > > index d30209b9cef8..0ca0c83fdb1c 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/coda.h > > +++ b/include/linux/coda.h > > @@ -58,8 +58,7 @@ Mellon the rights to redistribute these changes without encumbrance. > > #ifndef _CODA_HEADER_ > > #define _CODA_HEADER_ > > > > -#if defined(__linux__) > > typedef unsigned long long u_quad_t; > > -#endif > > + > > #include <uapi/linux/coda.h> > > #endif > > -- > > 2.19.1 > > > > + Jan Harkes, + Ruslan Bilovol > > Hi Jan, > > Can you please apply this? Nobody seems to be interested in taking > this patch, so I'm not sure how to proceed further. Please advice. > > Thanks!
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 06:41:13PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > I'm not sure how you managed to miss people in this list (perhaps by > default you have suppress all Cc in your Git configuration), but I > guess we may gently ask Christoph to apply this in case Jan will not > appear. I don't really have a relevant tree. You probably want to send it to Al Viro.
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 06:41:13PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > I'm not sure how you managed to miss people in this list (perhaps by > default you have suppress all Cc in your Git configuration), but I > guess we may gently ask Christoph to apply this in case Jan will not > appear. You have got to give me a little more than 10 minutes to respond before assuming that I would not appear... I don't think I've ignored any previous emails on this subject and the only issues has been some people not receiving my responses for unknown reasons (agressive spam filter?). I have no problem with this patch, have it sitting with some other non-urgent patches and in case it doesn't appear upstream it should piggyback with whatever I have to send. I still don't know why the bare-metal toolchain couldn't just add a -D__linux__. I understand that this define is expected to be always present while compiling kernel headers so that there is no good reason to even bother testing for it, which is why I have no issue with the patch. But it seems it would make your life a lot easier if you had it defined. Jan
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 8:10 PM Jan Harkes <jaharkes@cs.cmu.edu> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 06:41:13PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > I'm not sure how you managed to miss people in this list (perhaps by > > default you have suppress all Cc in your Git configuration), but I > > guess we may gently ask Christoph to apply this in case Jan will not > > appear. > > You have got to give me a little more than 10 minutes to respond before > assuming that I would not appear... I don't think I've ignored any > previous emails on this subject and the only issues has been some people > not receiving my responses for unknown reasons (agressive spam filter?). > > I have no problem with this patch, have it sitting with some other > non-urgent patches and in case it doesn't appear upstream it should > piggyback with whatever I have to send. > Thanks, Jan, really appreciate it. We need this patch to fix our tests with allmodconfig configuration (in Linaro CI loops). > I still don't know why the bare-metal toolchain couldn't just add a > -D__linux__. I understand that this define is expected to be always > present while compiling kernel headers so that there is no good reason > to even bother testing for it, which is why I have no issue with the > patch. But it seems it would make your life a lot easier if you had it > defined. > As I understand it, from toolchain's point of view, if __linux__ is defined then it means that the program is being built *for* Linux (i.e. we can use Linux specific features, ABI, like syscalls). Checking this definition can make sense in uapi headers, but in kernel code we shouldn't use it (as kernel is baremetal program and not compiled for some OS). I presume that's why __linux__ is not defined in bare-metal toolchains (as those don't provide Linux specific features, libc, etc). > Jan >
+ Jan Harkes back to "To:" list, slipped away somehow... On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 9:36 PM Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 8:10 PM Jan Harkes <jaharkes@cs.cmu.edu> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 06:41:13PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > I'm not sure how you managed to miss people in this list (perhaps by > > > default you have suppress all Cc in your Git configuration), but I > > > guess we may gently ask Christoph to apply this in case Jan will not > > > appear. > > > > You have got to give me a little more than 10 minutes to respond before > > assuming that I would not appear... I don't think I've ignored any > > previous emails on this subject and the only issues has been some people > > not receiving my responses for unknown reasons (agressive spam filter?). > > > > I have no problem with this patch, have it sitting with some other > > non-urgent patches and in case it doesn't appear upstream it should > > piggyback with whatever I have to send. > > > > Thanks, Jan, really appreciate it. We need this patch to fix our tests > with allmodconfig configuration (in Linaro CI loops). > > > I still don't know why the bare-metal toolchain couldn't just add a > > -D__linux__. I understand that this define is expected to be always > > present while compiling kernel headers so that there is no good reason > > to even bother testing for it, which is why I have no issue with the > > patch. But it seems it would make your life a lot easier if you had it > > defined. > > > > As I understand it, from toolchain's point of view, if __linux__ is > defined then it means that the program is being built *for* Linux > (i.e. we can use Linux specific features, ABI, like syscalls). > Checking this definition can make sense in uapi headers, but in kernel > code we shouldn't use it (as kernel is baremetal program and not > compiled for some OS). I presume that's why __linux__ is not defined > in bare-metal toolchains (as those don't provide Linux specific > features, libc, etc). > > > Jan > >
That actually makes a lot of sense. Jan On November 21, 2018 2:39:03 PM EST, Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@linaro.org> wrote: >+ Jan Harkes back to "To:" list, slipped away somehow... > >On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 9:36 PM Sam Protsenko ><semen.protsenko@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 8:10 PM Jan Harkes <jaharkes@cs.cmu.edu> >wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 06:41:13PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> > > I'm not sure how you managed to miss people in this list (perhaps >by >> > > default you have suppress all Cc in your Git configuration), but >I >> > > guess we may gently ask Christoph to apply this in case Jan will >not >> > > appear. >> > >> > You have got to give me a little more than 10 minutes to respond >before >> > assuming that I would not appear... I don't think I've ignored any >> > previous emails on this subject and the only issues has been some >people >> > not receiving my responses for unknown reasons (agressive spam >filter?). >> > >> > I have no problem with this patch, have it sitting with some other >> > non-urgent patches and in case it doesn't appear upstream it should >> > piggyback with whatever I have to send. >> > >> >> Thanks, Jan, really appreciate it. We need this patch to fix our >tests >> with allmodconfig configuration (in Linaro CI loops). >> >> > I still don't know why the bare-metal toolchain couldn't just add a >> > -D__linux__. I understand that this define is expected to be >always >> > present while compiling kernel headers so that there is no good >reason >> > to even bother testing for it, which is why I have no issue with >the >> > patch. But it seems it would make your life a lot easier if you had >it >> > defined. >> > >> >> As I understand it, from toolchain's point of view, if __linux__ is >> defined then it means that the program is being built *for* Linux >> (i.e. we can use Linux specific features, ABI, like syscalls). >> Checking this definition can make sense in uapi headers, but in >kernel >> code we shouldn't use it (as kernel is baremetal program and not >> compiled for some OS). I presume that's why __linux__ is not defined >> in bare-metal toolchains (as those don't provide Linux specific >> features, libc, etc). >> >> > Jan >> >
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 8:10 PM Jan Harkes <jaharkes@cs.cmu.edu> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 06:41:13PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > I'm not sure how you managed to miss people in this list (perhaps by > > default you have suppress all Cc in your Git configuration), but I > > guess we may gently ask Christoph to apply this in case Jan will not > > appear. > > You have got to give me a little more than 10 minutes to respond before > assuming that I would not appear... Problem is, AFAICS, Sam's initial Cc list was not fulfilled. As I guessed it might be configuration issue on his side. > I don't think I've ignored any > previous emails on this subject and the only issues has been some people > not receiving my responses for unknown reasons (agressive spam filter?). Personally I didn't get this one (Gmail "clever" spam filtering).
Hi Jan, Can you please clarify on this patch? As I can see v5.0-rc1 is out now, which means merge window is closed, but I can't see this patch in linux-mainline yet. Do you need any additional steps from my side (like rebasing, etc)? Thanks! On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:49 AM Jan Harkes <jaharkes@cs.cmu.edu> wrote: > > That actually makes a lot of sense. > > Jan > > On November 21, 2018 2:39:03 PM EST, Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@linaro.org> wrote: > >+ Jan Harkes back to "To:" list, slipped away somehow... > > > >On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 9:36 PM Sam Protsenko > ><semen.protsenko@linaro.org> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 8:10 PM Jan Harkes <jaharkes@cs.cmu.edu> > >wrote: > >> > > >> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 06:41:13PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >> > > I'm not sure how you managed to miss people in this list (perhaps > >by > >> > > default you have suppress all Cc in your Git configuration), but > >I > >> > > guess we may gently ask Christoph to apply this in case Jan will > >not > >> > > appear. > >> > > >> > You have got to give me a little more than 10 minutes to respond > >before > >> > assuming that I would not appear... I don't think I've ignored any > >> > previous emails on this subject and the only issues has been some > >people > >> > not receiving my responses for unknown reasons (agressive spam > >filter?). > >> > > >> > I have no problem with this patch, have it sitting with some other > >> > non-urgent patches and in case it doesn't appear upstream it should > >> > piggyback with whatever I have to send. > >> > > >> > >> Thanks, Jan, really appreciate it. We need this patch to fix our > >tests > >> with allmodconfig configuration (in Linaro CI loops). > >> > >> > I still don't know why the bare-metal toolchain couldn't just add a > >> > -D__linux__. I understand that this define is expected to be > >always > >> > present while compiling kernel headers so that there is no good > >reason > >> > to even bother testing for it, which is why I have no issue with > >the > >> > patch. But it seems it would make your life a lot easier if you had > >it > >> > defined. > >> > > >> > >> As I understand it, from toolchain's point of view, if __linux__ is > >> defined then it means that the program is being built *for* Linux > >> (i.e. we can use Linux specific features, ABI, like syscalls). > >> Checking this definition can make sense in uapi headers, but in > >kernel > >> code we shouldn't use it (as kernel is baremetal program and not > >> compiled for some OS). I presume that's why __linux__ is not defined > >> in bare-metal toolchains (as those don't provide Linux specific > >> features, libc, etc). > >> > >> > Jan > >> >
diff --git a/include/linux/coda.h b/include/linux/coda.h index d30209b9cef8..0ca0c83fdb1c 100644 --- a/include/linux/coda.h +++ b/include/linux/coda.h @@ -58,8 +58,7 @@ Mellon the rights to redistribute these changes without encumbrance. #ifndef _CODA_HEADER_ #define _CODA_HEADER_ -#if defined(__linux__) typedef unsigned long long u_quad_t; -#endif + #include <uapi/linux/coda.h> #endif
The kernel is self-contained project and can be built with bare-metal toolchain. But bare-metal toolchain doesn't define __linux__. Because of this u_quad_t type is not defined when using bare-metal toolchain and codafs build fails. This patch fixes it by defining u_quad_t type unconditionally. Cc: Jan Harkes <jaharkes@cs.cmu.edu> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@linaro.org> --- include/linux/coda.h | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)