On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 10:31:10AM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:

On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 09:03:23PM +0100, Nicolas Schier wrote:

quoted

Thanks for the patch set and all the work behind!  I found only one
issue in patch 3, the rest looks good to me as they are.

I haven't reviewed the compiler flags for the archs, but from the formal
point of view they look good to me, too.

How shall we proceed with here?  I think, easiest would be if we get
appropriate acks from the architecture maintainers, so we could take
this via kbuild.

That would surely be the best option. Unfortunately quite frequently it is hard
to get architecture maintainer's feedback on a cross-architecture series.

quoted

Other opinions?

It would also work to only take the first three patches through the kbuild tree
and push the other ones through the architecture trees.

I don't really have a clear preference.

If you do not have a preference, I think it would be easier if Nicolas
picks up the first three patches (which I will go review formally
shortly, sorry again for the delay on that) to make sure they make
6.19-rc1 then you can send out the architecture changes individually
with plans to pick up any ones that have been left behind after a
development cycle? That should give architecture maintainers enough time
to properly react and review the series (since they will know if those
flags are appropriate). We could probably send the last patch as a fix
if those changes do not land until 6.20-rc1.

Cheers,
Nathan