On Sun, 7 Mar 2021 05:47:56 +0100 Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
On 3/7/21 5:25 AM, Marek Behún wrote:
This is how Linux does this now, see Linux commit 339f29d91acf.
Signed-off-by: Marek Behún marek.behun@nic.cz
scripts/checkpatch.pl | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl index 755f4802a4..fd1e9c4d24 100755 --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl @@ -6065,7 +6065,7 @@ sub process { my $old = substr($rawline, $-[1], $+[1] - $-[1]); my $new = substr($old, 1, -1); if (WARN("PREFER_SECTION",
"__section($new) is preferred over __attribute__((section($old)))\n" . $herecurr) &&
"__section(\"$new\") is preferred over __attribute__((section($old)))\n" . $herecurr) && $fix) { $fixed[$fixlinenr] =~ s/\b__attribute__\s*\(\s*\(\s*_*section_*\s*\(\s*\Q$old\E\s*\)\s*\)\s*\)/__section($new)/;Shouldn't some of the patches which are clearly fixes be sent as separate fixes, so they can be picked while the LTO support is being worked on ?
Yes, ideally it would be better, but:
this patch is connected to patch 6 of this series, and patch 6 needs to be in this series because otherwise people trying to apply this series would get an error.
The first 4 patches are also fixes for something else, but they were discovered thanks to LTO and without them users will get warnings/errors when trying to build for some boards.
Tom, should I send these patches separately? Also the first 3 patches should maybe be applied via Stefan and Simon, via their trees...
Marek