Release 2.26 - Next week ?

[Tristan Gingold]

> On 14 Jan 2016, at 00:22, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 05:26:09AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote:
>> My x86-64 kernel has
>> 
>> # CONFIG_MODVERSIONS is not set
>> CONFIG_RELOCATABLE=y
>> 
>> Will I see the problem if I turn on CONFIG_MODVERSIONS and turn
>> off CONFIG_RELOCATABLE?
> 
> No.  The Linux kernel problem is specific to ppc64 ELFv2, and the
> .TOC. symbol.
> 
>>> The important question is:  Was PR4317 just cosmetic?
>>> 
>> 
>> I don't remember what triggered me to open the bug.
> 
> So, Tristan, should I revert my PR4317 patch for 2.26?
> 
> The argument for this action is that we have a presumed cosmetic fix
> that causes a known regression.  The regression failure has been
> analyzed sufficiently to know the exact cause.  There is also some
> small chance that other projects that post-process a final-linked
> executable might similarly fail when undefined symbols are removed.
> 
> Against that is the fact that the PR4317 patch has been applied for
> quite a while, and the kernel or anything else that depends on
> undefined symbols in an executable is quite fragile if not downright
> buggy.
> 
> I'm inclined to revert the patch for 2.26 but leave it in for 2.27.

Yes, this looks to be the safest action.

Thank you for the head up.
Tristan.