From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the arm64 tree
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:32:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a0nSKFrp7n3CDvh29vYUiH+4mmHr5jnTv4UgchBnpqvpg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170331140217.3c0fc28f@canb.auug.org.au>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-31 9:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-31 3:02 linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the arm64 tree Stephen Rothwell
2017-03-31 9:32 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2017-03-31 11:24 ` Stephen Rothwell
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2021-12-13 16:45 broonie
2021-08-27 4:09 Stephen Rothwell
2020-05-22 6:11 Stephen Rothwell
2020-03-18 4:27 Stephen Rothwell
2020-03-18 8:50 ` Catalin Marinas
2020-03-10 1:49 Stephen Rothwell
2019-04-15 4:25 Stephen Rothwell
2019-04-15 4:21 Stephen Rothwell
2017-11-01 5:47 Stephen Rothwell
2017-11-13 22:52 ` Stephen Rothwell
2017-08-22 3:38 Stephen Rothwell
2017-09-04 5:29 ` Stephen Rothwell
2017-06-16 3:25 Stephen Rothwell
2017-07-03 1:29 ` Stephen Rothwell
2016-09-12 2:54 Stephen Rothwell
2016-05-12 2:00 Stephen Rothwell
2016-04-29 3:56 Stephen Rothwell
2016-04-29 9:04 ` Matt Fleming
2016-02-26 1:53 Stephen Rothwell
2016-02-26 1:53 Stephen Rothwell
2015-10-22 2:26 Stephen Rothwell
2015-10-22 12:06 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-10-22 15:32 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-10-31 22:17 ` Stephen Rothwell
2015-10-15 3:05 Stephen Rothwell
2015-10-13 2:10 Stephen Rothwell
2015-10-13 9:50 ` Will Deacon
2014-05-23 6:44 Stephen Rothwell
2014-05-23 9:23 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-05-23 6:28 Stephen Rothwell
2014-05-23 8:41 ` Catalin Marinas
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAK8P3a0nSKFrp7n3CDvh29vYUiH+4mmHr5jnTv4UgchBnpqvpg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).