Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 03:10:04PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> (Maciej added to cc.)
>
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
>>
>> arch/mips/kernel/traps.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> 260a789828aa ("MIPS: signal: Remove unreachable code from force_fcr31_sig().")
>>
>> from the mips tree and commit:
>>
>> ea1b75cf9138 ("signal/mips: Document a conflict with SI_USER with SIGFPE")
>>
>> from the userns tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (the former removed the code updated by the latter) 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.
>
> Eric,
>
> after yesterday's emails on the topic I think commit ea1b75cf9138 ("signal/
> mips: Document a conflict with SI_USER with SIGFPE") should be
> dropped.
I have a follow on change I am about to post and would like to carry
that replaces force_sig_info with force_sig_fault. So force_fcr31_sig
winds up looking like:
void force_fcr31_sig(unsigned long fcr31, void __user *fault_addr,
struct task_struct *tsk)
{
int si_code;
if (fcr31 & FPU_CSR_INV_X)
si_code = FPE_FLTINV;
else if (fcr31 & FPU_CSR_DIV_X)
si_code = FPE_FLTDIV;
else if (fcr31 & FPU_CSR_OVF_X)
si_code = FPE_FLTOVF;
else if (fcr31 & FPU_CSR_UDF_X)
si_code = FPE_FLTUND;
else if (fcr31 & FPU_CSR_INE_X)
si_code = FPE_FLTRES;
else
si_code = FPE_FIXME;
force_sig_fault(SIGFPE, si_code, fault_addr, tsk);
}
Which causes gcc to complain if the last else clause is dropped.
Would you be happy if the function wound up looking like:
void force_fcr31_sig(unsigned long fcr31, void __user *fault_addr,
struct task_struct *tsk)
{
int si_code;
if (fcr31 & FPU_CSR_INV_X)
si_code = FPE_FLTINV;
else if (fcr31 & FPU_CSR_DIV_X)
si_code = FPE_FLTDIV;
else if (fcr31 & FPU_CSR_OVF_X)
si_code = FPE_FLTOVF;
else if (fcr31 & FPU_CSR_UDF_X)
si_code = FPE_FLTUND;
else if (fcr31 & FPU_CSR_INE_X)
si_code = FPE_FLTRES;
else
return; /* Broken hardware? */
force_sig_fault(SIGFPE, si_code, fault_addr, tsk);
}
As it is now clear that code path should never happen I will be happy to
queue change that effectively reverts of ea1b75cf9138 ("signal/mips:
Document a conflict with SI_USER with SIGFPE") and just returns from
force_fcr32_sig in that case.
Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
