From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753914AbdKIQvv (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:51:51 -0500
Received: from mail-it0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:48533 "EHLO
        mail-it0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753683AbdKIQvr (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:51:47 -0500
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+S+zGLvD7JHs1DGVYs0H9uDA8globYfRHqZJY6+kdoU09fEq5M70abjbqilP0mCiRuXVyIcDg==
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 08:51:43 -0800
From: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>
To: Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim.kuvyrkov@linaro.org>
Cc: Yury Norov <ynorov@caviumnetworks.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@google.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Alex Matveev <alxmtvv@gmail.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/15] arm64: fix mrs_s/msr_s macros for clang LTO
Message-ID: <20171109165143.GD10540@samitolvanen.mtv.corp.google.com>
References: <20171103171203.107569-1-samitolvanen@google.com>
 <20171103171203.107569-18-samitolvanen@google.com>
 <20171108092555.ta4mkqolunyw6mdr@yury-thinkpad>
 <20171109000222.GC8522@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
 <DAE9979D-29B4-4BD3-99E5-0E8273A7F8E0@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <DAE9979D-29B4-4BD3-99E5-0E8273A7F8E0@linaro.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 07:48:06AM +0300, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> Regarding CONFIG_* options, I would expect most of the configuration
> changes to be equally valid for both GCC's and Clang's LTO support.
> Sami, I don't think it's fair to ask you to support both Clang and GCC in
> your patchset, but, where changes are obviously toolchain-agnostic, could
> you use CONFIG_LTO?  And use CONFIG_LTO_CLANG for Clang-specific parts?

Sure, using CONFIG_LTO for common code and CONFIG_LTO_CLANG for clang-
specific parts sounds good.

Sami