linux-next: manual merge of the arc-current tree with Linus' tree

linux-next: manual merge of the arc-current tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 789 bytes --]

Hi Vineet,

Today's linux-next merge of the arc-current tree got a conflict in:

  arch/arc/include/asm/atomic.h

between commit:

  ab0b910490fe ("atomics/arc: Define atomic64_fetch_add_unless()")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  39456148db74 ("ARC: atomic64: fix atomic64_add_unless function")

from the arc-current tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the version from Linus' tree for now) 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

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arc-current tree with Linus' tree

[Vineet Gupta]

On 08/14/2018 03:11 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Vineet,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the arc-current tree got a conflict in:
>
>   arch/arc/include/asm/atomic.h
>
> between commit:
>
>   ab0b910490fe ("atomics/arc: Define atomic64_fetch_add_unless()")
>
> from Linus' tree and commit:
>
>   39456148db74 ("ARC: atomic64: fix atomic64_add_unless function")
>
> from the arc-current tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just used the version from Linus' tree for now) 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.

Thx for the report Stephen. I've dropped my patch for now, let the dust settle and
then we can add it.

Thx,
-Vineet

linux-next: manual merge of the arc-current tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1662 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the arc-current tree got a conflict in:

  arch/arc/mm/fault.c

between commit:

  d8d7d842e828 ("arch/arc/mm/fault.c: remove caller signal_pending_branch predictions")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  ce3e02e8be58 ("ARC: mm: do_page_fault fixes #1: relinquish mmap_sem if signal arrives while handle_mm_fault")

from the arc-current 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/arc/mm/fault.c
index a1d723197084,535cf18e8bf2..000000000000
--- a/arch/arc/mm/fault.c
+++ b/arch/arc/mm/fault.c
@@@ -141,12 -141,17 +141,17 @@@ good_area
  	 */
  	fault = handle_mm_fault(vma, address, flags);
  
- 	/* If Pagefault was interrupted by SIGKILL, exit page fault "early" */
 -	if (unlikely(fatal_signal_pending(current))) {
 +	if (fatal_signal_pending(current)) {
- 		if ((fault & VM_FAULT_ERROR) && !(fault & VM_FAULT_RETRY))
- 			up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
- 		if (user_mode(regs))
+ 
+ 		/*
+ 		 * if fault retry, mmap_sem already relinquished by core mm
+ 		 * so OK to return to user mode (with signal handled first)
+ 		 */
+ 		if (fault & VM_FAULT_RETRY) {
+ 			if (!user_mode(regs))
+ 				goto no_context;
  			return;
+ 		}
  	}
  
  	perf_sw_event(PERF_COUNT_SW_PAGE_FAULTS, 1, regs, address);

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]