On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 5:57 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/cris/include/arch-v10/arch/bug.h
>
> between commit:
>
> c8133e59edb0 ("cris: Mark end of BUG() implementation as unreachable")
>
> from the kspp tree and commit:
>
> c5a1e183a75a ("bug.h: work around GCC PR82365 in BUG()")
>
> from the akpm-current tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just used the akpm-current tree version) 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.
Kees,
it seems you ran into the same issue that I did, and got the same fix
for the first BUG() variant, but I think my version for the second one
is slightly better:
/* This just causes an oops. */
-#define BUG() (*(int *)0 = 0)
+#define BUG() \
+do { \
+ barrier_before_unreachable(); \
+ __builtin_trap(); \
+} while (0)
compared to yours:
/* This just causes an oops. */
-#define BUG() (*(int *)0 = 0)
+#define BUG() \
+do { \
+ (*(int *)0 = 0); \
+ do {} while (1); \
+ unreachable(); \
+} while (0)
which relies on a NULL pointer dereference to trap but otherwise
does the same thing. The easiest solution for the conflict seems to
be that you just drop your patch.
Arnd
--
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
