On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 09:36:41PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 11:35:52AM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 6:44 PM Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulni...@google.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Also for more context, see:
> > > commit 7829fb09a2b4 ("lib: make memzero_explicit more robust against
> > > dead store elimination")
> >
> > By the way, shouldn't that barrier_data() be directly in compiler.h
> > too, since it is for both gcc & clang?
> >
> > > Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulni...@google.com>
> > >
> > > + Miguel
> > > Miguel, would you mind taking this into your compiler-attributes tree?
> >
> > Sure, at least we get quickly some linux-next time.
>
>
> BTW why linux-next? shouldn't this go into 5.0 and stable? It's a bugfix
> after all.
>
It doesn't hurt to put things in linux-next for a week and then 5.0 and
-stable. Not a lot of testing happens on linux-next, but some does.
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
