From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933122AbdCaJdA (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Mar 2017 05:33:00 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f67.google.com ([209.85.218.67]:32835 "EHLO mail-oi0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933058AbdCaJc4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Mar 2017 05:32:56 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170331140217.3c0fc28f@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20170331140217.3c0fc28f@canb.auug.org.au> From: Arnd Bergmann Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:32:54 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: fUHfHE2nhutIWPmRVpSpJb4YNGQ Message-ID: Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the arm64 tree To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , Catalin Marinas , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Mark Brown Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 5:02 AM, Stephen Rothwell 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