On 09/25/2013 03:49:07 PM, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:

Russell King - ARM Linux [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:23:06AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:

quoted

On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

quoted

It could be as simple as making gas accept an extra argument for
instructions like dsb and just ignoring it.

So you prefer I come up with the reversion patches locally and  

_not_

quoted

quoted

send them upstream?

This is a silly attitude.  What you're effectively saying is that we
are never allowed to use any future ARM instructions in any Linux
kernel because that might break your precious assembler.

I've got news for you.  We're *not* going to listen to that  

argument.

quoted

END OF DISCUSSION (everything else is just a waste of time.)

Who am I to argue with capital letters?

I fully agree.

Actually, I thought this was an armv5l regression. (My objection was to  
requiring a newer toolchain for architectures that built fine under the  
old one. My attention was attracted by the proposed patch to  
Documentation/changes with a global updated for required binutils  
version.)

I've since had a chance to confirm the armv5 build break I saw was just  
normal mid-rc1 noise (since fixed) and this set of patches just applies  
to armv7, which already required a newer binutils, so objection  
withdrawn.

Rob