Re: [GIT pull] locking fix for 4.9

2016-10-12 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 10:22:59 -0700 Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > But I agree. We have lived a long time without the need for this > > warning. I'm not strongly advocating keeping the warning around and > > just disabling it totally. But it

Re: [GIT pull] locking fix for 4.9

2016-10-12 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > But I agree. We have lived a long time without the need for this > warning. I'm not strongly advocating keeping the warning around and > just disabling it totally. But it all comes down to how much we > trust those that inherit this after

Re: [GIT pull] locking fix for 4.9

2016-10-12 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:29:27 -0700 Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 5:47 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > A single fix which prevents newer GCCs from spamming the build output with > > overly eager warnings about __builtin_return_address() uses which are > > correct. > > Ugh.

Re: [GIT pull] locking fix for 4.9

2016-10-10 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 5:47 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > A single fix which prevents newer GCCs from spamming the build output with > overly eager warnings about __builtin_return_address() uses which are > correct. Ugh. This feels over-engineered to me. We already disable that warning uncondit

[GIT pull] locking fix for 4.9

2016-10-08 Thread Thomas Gleixner
Linus, please pull the latest locking-urgent-for-linus git tree from: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git locking-urgent-for-linus A single fix which prevents newer GCCs from spamming the build output with overly eager warnings about __builtin_return_address() uses whic