asm-generic changes for 4.6

asm-generic changes for 4.6

[Arnd Bergmann]

The following changes since commit 36f90b0a2ddd60823fe193a85e60ff1906c2a9b3:

  Linux 4.5-rc2 (2016-01-31 18:12:16 -0800)

are available in the git repository at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arnd/asm-generic.git tags/asm-generic-4.6

for you to fetch changes up to a1cbaad75a8f891bca9cc65a1fb95ae1b28d2f6a:

  asm-generic: remove old nonatomic-io wrapper files (2016-03-01 22:25:17 +0100)

----------------------------------------------------------------
asm-generic changes for 4.6

There are only three patches this time, most other changes to
files in include/asm-generic tend to go through the tree of whoever
depends on the change.

Two patches are cleanups for stuff that is no longer needed,
the main change is to adapt the generic version of BUG_ON()
for CONFIG_BUG=n to make it behave consistently with BUG().

This avoids undefined behavior along with a number of warnings
about that undefined behavior in randconfig builds when
we keep going on after hitting a BUG_ON().

----------------------------------------------------------------
Arnd Bergmann (2):
      asm-generic: default BUG_ON(x) to if(x)BUG()
      asm-generic: remove old nonatomic-io wrapper files

Chen Gang (1):
      asm-generic: page.h: Remove useless get_user_page and free_user_page

 arch/arc/include/asm/page.h                         | 3 ---
 arch/arm/include/asm/page-nommu.h                   | 3 ---
 arch/frv/include/asm/page.h                         | 3 ---
 arch/m68k/include/asm/page_mm.h                     | 3 ---
 arch/m68k/include/asm/page_no.h                     | 3 ---
 arch/openrisc/include/asm/page.h                    | 3 ---
 drivers/dma/idma64.h                                | 2 +-
 drivers/net/ethernet/hisilicon/hns/hns_dsaf_xgmac.c | 2 +-
 drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/nfp_net.h        | 2 +-
 include/asm-generic/bug.h                           | 2 +-
 include/asm-generic/io-64-nonatomic-hi-lo.h         | 2 --
 include/asm-generic/io-64-nonatomic-lo-hi.h         | 2 --
 include/asm-generic/page.h                          | 3 ---
 13 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 include/asm-generic/io-64-nonatomic-hi-lo.h
 delete mode 100644 include/asm-generic/io-64-nonatomic-lo-hi.h

Re: asm-generic changes for 4.6

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> asm-generic changes for 4.6

Btw, can you add "[GIT PULL]" to the subject line for your pulls? Or a
"Please pull" in the body or similar.

When I do pulls, my email filter looks for (surprise surprise) the
terms "git" and "pull".

And this didn't trigger either of those.

The normal git request-pull script has that "git" part, and some
people just add the "Please pull" to the email, and my filter will
pick that up too. But the easiest and preferred way for me to see pull
requests ends up being that "[GIT PULL]" in the subject line. For the
same reason I prefer "[PATCH x/y]" in the subject line for patches.

Not getting caught by my filter sometimes means that a pull gets
delayed. Very seldom it might be overlooked entirely, but usually I do
catch it later on after the other pulls (like happened now).

                Linus

Re: asm-generic changes for 4.6

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Thursday 24 March 2016 23:29:31 Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > asm-generic changes for 4.6
> 
> Btw, can you add "[GIT PULL]" to the subject line for your pulls? Or a
> "Please pull" in the body or similar.
> 
> When I do pulls, my email filter looks for (surprise surprise) the
> terms "git" and "pull".
> 
> And this didn't trigger either of those.
> 
> The normal git request-pull script has that "git" part, and some
> people just add the "Please pull" to the email, and my filter will
> pick that up too. But the easiest and preferred way for me to see pull
> requests ends up being that "[GIT PULL]" in the subject line. For the
> same reason I prefer "[PATCH x/y]" in the subject line for patches.
> 
> Not getting caught by my filter sometimes means that a pull gets
> delayed. Very seldom it might be overlooked entirely, but usually I do
> catch it later on after the other pulls (like happened now).
> 

Right. I realized my mistake the minute after sending the mail out,
but decided against sending it again immediately, assuming that you'd
either find it or I could resend the next day.

Thanks for pulling it in!

	Arnd