On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:08:20AM +0200, Philipp Rudo wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
>
> in recent patches AKASHI [1] and I [2] made some changes to the declarations
> you are touching and already removed some of the weak statements. The patches
> got accepted on linux-next and will (hopefully) be pulled
On 04/17/18 at 09:07am, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 05:29:08PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> > Hi Bjorn,
> >
> > There are changes I have made to solve 5-level conflict with
> > kexec/kdump and also interface unification task, they will involve x86
> > 64 only changes on these
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 05:29:08PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
>
> There are changes I have made to solve 5-level conflict with
> kexec/kdump and also interface unification task, they will involve x86
> 64 only changes on these functions, I don't think we need remove them if
> without
Hi Bjorn,
There are changes I have made to solve 5-level conflict with
kexec/kdump and also interface unification task, they will involve x86
64 only changes on these functions, I don't think we need remove them if
without any obvious impact or error reported.
Thanks
Baoquan
On 04/13/18 at
Hi Bjorn,
in recent patches AKASHI [1] and I [2] made some changes to the declarations
you are touching and already removed some of the weak statements. The patches
got accepted on linux-next and will (hopefully) be pulled for v4.17. So you
should prepare for some merge conflicts. Nevertheless
"Weak" annotations in header files are error-prone because they make
every definition weak. Remove them from include/linux/kexec.h.
These were introduced in two separate commits, so this is in two
patches so they can be easily backported to stable kernels (some of
them date back to v4.3 and one
