Re: [PATCH v2] codafs: Fix build using bare-metal toolchain

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 3:04 PM Jan Harkes <jaharkes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 02:01:04PM +0200, Sam Protsenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 8:34 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 10:05:49PM +0200, Sam Protsenko wrote:
> > >> Hi Greg,
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 10:03 PM, Sam Protsenko
> > >> <semen.protsenko@xxxxxxxxxx> 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.
> > >> >
> > >> > Signed-off-by: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> > ---
> > >>
> > >> Can you please pull this one, if this applicable? I sent it a while
> > >> ago, but I guess it got lost in mailing list. It might be also
> > >> applicable to stable branch (as it fixes allmodconfig build for ARM
> > >> with bare-metal toolchain).
> > >
> > > Why are you asking me?  I'm not the maintainer of this file :(
> > >
> > > confused,
> > >
> >
> > Sorry to bother you. I just thought you might be interested in this
> > one, as it fixes build for "allmodconfig" configuration, hence it can
> > be related to stable branch. Also, maintainers didn't respond to that
> > patch, so I'm kinda dead in the water.
> >
> > Anyway, will try to ping maintainers one more time.
>
> I thought I had responded,

Oh, this one also was in Spam.

> I didn't see a reason why one would want to
> compile non-userspace kernel headers outside of the context of the
> kernel and if you do have to do that why not just add -D__linux__.
>
> However, I can also see the point that anything not in uapi/ pretty much
> by definition will be compiled with __linux__ defined so it actually
> doesn't make a discernable difference to just drop the ifdef and I'm
> fine with a patch like this.
>
> These trivial patches typically get picked up through kernel janitors,
> or maybe an akpm linux-next patch queue. In fact, I'm not even sure if
> there is a designated person I would be passing updates to, I've sent
> patches to akpm, viro, hellwig, linus, and gregkh at various times.

% scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f include/linux/coda.h
Jan Harkes <jaharkes@xxxxxxxxxx> (maintainer:CODA FILE SYSTEM)
coda@xxxxxxxxxx (maintainer:CODA FILE SYSTEM)
codalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (open list:CODA FILE SYSTEM)
linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (open list)

Aren't you a maintainer?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko