Re: [PATCH] arm64/neon: Disable -Wincompatible-pointer-types when building with Clang

[Ard Biesheuvel]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 20:45, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 20:43, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 11:28 AM Ard Biesheuvel
> > <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 20:25, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 11:20 AM Ard Biesheuvel
> > > > <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > Provided that we stop sending Clang enablement patches to -stable:
> > > >
> > > > What does that mean?  We're trying to provide clang support back to
> > > > 4.4 LTS branches. (so 4.4, 4.9, 4.14, 4.19).
> > >
> > > I understand that is what you are attempting, but that does not mean
> > > it /belongs/ in -stable.
> > >
> > > There are rules for stable, and people that track stable kernels (such
> > > as the distros) should be able to rely on us to only backport bug
> > > fixes, not linker script changes and other updates that fix issues
> > > that did not exist when those kernels were released.
> > >
> > > It is unclear to me how these clang changes benefit those users.
> >
> > If you're referring to
> > https://www.spinics.net/lists/stable/msg278381.html, that's fair (I
> > think those were helpful for LLD support on arm64).
> >
> > Why didn't you speak up then?  Why is this coming up now?
>
> That is just one example, and I failed to realise it at the time.
>
> I think the Clang/LLVM work you are doing is very important, but I
> simply don't think any of it belongs in -stable kernels.

OK, to clarify my position:

I have no problem whatsoever with taking this patch into v5.x, so

Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx>

but going forward, I will push back on -stable backports for
Clang/LLVM specific changes, since they are obviously in violation of
the stable kernel rules.