Messages in this thread | | | From | Olof Johansson <> | Date | Fri, 13 Jul 2018 08:15:52 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Revert "arm64: Use aarch64elf and aarch64elfb emulation mode variants" |
| |
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 8:07 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > Hi Olof, > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 07:59:10AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:36:16AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: >> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:30:39AM +0200, Paul Kocialkowski wrote: >> > > On Tue, 2018-07-10 at 10:01 +0100, Will Deacon wrote: >> > > > Thanks, Laura. >> > > > >> > > > I'll take this as a fix, and add a comment to the Makefile to justify >> > > > why we need the linux target. >> > > >> > > So this comes down to either breaking fedora/debian toolchains (that >> > > don't support elf emulation mode) or breaking bare-metal toolchains >> > > (that don't support linux emulation mode). >> > > >> > > Since Linux is a bare-metal project that does not technically require >> > > the linux target (who said using "Linux" for all things is confusing?), >> > > I think it should aim for the elf target in the long term. >> > > >> > > But well, breaking Linux build in common distros isn't good either, so I >> > > guess it makes sense to revert this while distros toolchains are being >> > > fixed. Hopefully, it won't take too long. >> > > >> > > What do you think? >> > >> > Yes, we need to revert the change since it's a regression otherwise. I think >> > the best course of action here would be to find a way that we can either >> > tell the linker that it doesn't need the missing linker scripts because >> > we're providing our own, or find a way to pass different LD flags depending >> > on whether or not we have a linux toolchain. >> > >> > For now, I've pushed the revert to for-next/fixes. >> >> Hi Will, >> >> This is regressed in mainline as well. But I think we can just use a (slightly >> improved) ld-option here? I checked it for x86 regression since it uses the >> one-argument version. Patch is here, can you pick that up instead and get it in >> for 4.18-rc? > > I already sent the revert to Linus, but I can certainly queue the ld-option > for 4.19 if we pick up some more tested-bys. Could you send it out as its > own patch please?
Definitely, separate email shortly.
-Olof
| |