Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1613590 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-03-31 05:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-03-31 13:30 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the arm64 tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2017-03-31 05:10 +0200
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the arm64 tree Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2017-03-31 11:40 +0200
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the arm64 tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2017-03-31 13:30 +0200
| From | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-31 05:10 +0200 |
| Subject | linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the arm64 tree |
| Message-ID | <tqV6N-7m5-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
arch/arm64/include/asm/bug.h
between commit:
f13d52cb3fad ("arm64: define BUG() instruction without CONFIG_BUG")
from the arm64 tree and commit:
19d436268dde ("debug: Add _ONCE() logic to report_bug()")
from the tip tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc arch/arm64/include/asm/bug.h
index 0bfe1df12b19,a9be1072933c..000000000000
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/bug.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/bug.h
@@@ -42,27 -45,19 +42,26 @@@
_BUGVERBOSE_LOCATION(__FILE__, __LINE__) \
".short " #flags "\n\t" \
".popsection\n" \
- \
- "1: brk %[imm]" \
- :: [imm] "i" (BUG_BRK_IMM) \
-)
+ "1: "
+#else
+#define __BUG_ENTRY(flags) ""
+#endif
+
+#define __BUG_FLAGS(flags) \
+ asm volatile ( \
+ __BUG_ENTRY(flags) \
+ "brk %[imm]" :: [imm] "i" (BUG_BRK_IMM) \
+ );
-#define BUG() do { \
- _BUG_FLAGS(0); \
- unreachable(); \
+
+#define BUG() do { \
+ __BUG_FLAGS(0); \
+ unreachable(); \
} while (0)
- #define __WARN_TAINT(taint) \
- __BUG_FLAGS(BUGFLAG_TAINT(taint))
+ #define __WARN_FLAGS(flags) _BUG_FLAGS(BUGFLAG_WARNING|(flags))
-#endif /* ! CONFIG_GENERIC_BUG */
+#define HAVE_ARCH_BUG
#include <asm-generic/bug.h>
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-31 11:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tr1ce-2Nd-37@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1613590 |
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 5:02 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/arm64/include/asm/bug.h
>
> between commit:
>
> f13d52cb3fad ("arm64: define BUG() instruction without CONFIG_BUG")
>
> from the arm64 tree and commit:
>
> 19d436268dde ("debug: Add _ONCE() logic to report_bug()")
>
> from the tip tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc arch/arm64/include/asm/bug.h
> index 0bfe1df12b19,a9be1072933c..000000000000
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/bug.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/bug.h
> @@@ -42,27 -45,19 +42,26 @@@
> _BUGVERBOSE_LOCATION(__FILE__, __LINE__) \
> ".short " #flags "\n\t" \
> ".popsection\n" \
> - \
> - "1: brk %[imm]" \
> - :: [imm] "i" (BUG_BRK_IMM) \
> -)
> + "1: "
> +#else
> +#define __BUG_ENTRY(flags) ""
> +#endif
> +
> +#define __BUG_FLAGS(flags) \
> + asm volatile ( \
> + __BUG_ENTRY(flags) \
> + "brk %[imm]" :: [imm] "i" (BUG_BRK_IMM) \
> + );
>
> -#define BUG() do { \
> - _BUG_FLAGS(0); \
> - unreachable(); \
> +
> +#define BUG() do { \
> + __BUG_FLAGS(0); \
> + unreachable(); \
> } while (0)
>
> - #define __WARN_TAINT(taint) \
> - __BUG_FLAGS(BUGFLAG_TAINT(taint))
> + #define __WARN_FLAGS(flags) _BUG_FLAGS(BUGFLAG_WARNING|(flags))
>
> -#endif /* ! CONFIG_GENERIC_BUG */
> +#define HAVE_ARCH_BUG
Mark Brown's build bot now reports this build failure:
arm64-defconfig
../arch/arm64/include/asm/bug.h:62:29: error: implicit declaration of
function '_BUG_FLAGS' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
I think the last line needs s/_BUG_FLAGS/__BUG_FLAGS/
aside from that, the merge looks right to me, but I wonder if
there is a way to prevent the conflict from showing up later
for Linus.
Arnd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-31 13:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tr2UG-3Xe-45@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1613811 |
Hi Arnd, On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:32:54 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > Mark Brown's build bot now reports this build failure: > > arm64-defconfig > ../arch/arm64/include/asm/bug.h:62:29: error: implicit declaration of > function '_BUG_FLAGS' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > > I think the last line needs s/_BUG_FLAGS/__BUG_FLAGS/ > aside from that, the merge looks right to me, but I wonder if > there is a way to prevent the conflict from showing up later > for Linus. Yeah, I have fixed that for Monday. I just presume that Linus will not be half blind when he fixes it up. :-) Or someone could remember to mention it to him. ;-) -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web