Re: [PATCH 00/12] external array access helpers

2016-10-17 Thread Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 07:05:22PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote: > On 10/16/2016 06:14 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 05:16:04PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > The first two patches in the series fix the concrete bug (a boot crash > > > when using gcc 7.

Re: [PATCH 00/12] external array access helpers

2016-10-16 Thread Jiri Slaby
On 10/16/2016, 06:14 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > Is gcc 7.0 "stable" enough that people will start to be using it soon? Standard suse kernel builds and boots with gcc 7 just fine. But only with 02/12 from this series. So perhaps it's not stable enough for production use, but at least I was abo

Re: [PATCH 00/12] external array access helpers

2016-10-16 Thread Vegard Nossum
On 10/16/2016 06:14 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 05:16:04PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote: Hi, The first two patches in the series fix the concrete bug (a boot crash when using gcc 7.0+) by defining new wrappers for arrays defined in linker scripts. These two patches shoul

Re: [PATCH 00/12] external array access helpers

2016-10-16 Thread Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 05:16:04PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote: > Hi, > > The first two patches in the series fix the concrete bug (a boot crash > when using gcc 7.0+) by defining new wrappers for arrays defined in > linker scripts. These two patches should probably go into the kernel + > stable as

[PATCH 00/12] external array access helpers

2016-10-16 Thread Vegard Nossum
Hi, The first two patches in the series fix the concrete bug (a boot crash when using gcc 7.0+) by defining new wrappers for arrays defined in linker scripts. These two patches should probably go into the kernel + stable as soon as people are happy with the new interface. Not sure who would pick t