From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932287Ab1ISS0G (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Sep 2011 14:26:06 -0400 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:56619 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755971Ab1ISS0E (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Sep 2011 14:26:04 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 19:25:44 +0100 From: Russell King - ARM Linux To: Simon Glass Cc: "Ramirez Luna, Omar" , Rabin Vincent , lk , lak Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: BUG() dies silently Message-ID: <20110919182544.GY16381@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1301602523-9906-1-git-send-email-omar.ramirez@ti.com> <20110919144313.GU16381@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110919165943.GX16381@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 11:02:08AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Russell, > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 03:43:13PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 09:26:49AM -0500, Ramirez Luna, Omar wrote: > >> > Hi > >> > > >> > On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Rabin Vincent wrote: > >> > > If the "Use generic BUG() handler" patch is only scheduled for the next > >> > > merge window and not for 3.1, can this patch be merged instead for 3.1 > >> > > and -stable?  This problem is easily seen with GCC 4.6. > >> > > >> > I can send it for both and let the maintainers decide. > >> > > >> > Russell, do you give your ack? > >> > >> I think it's too large a change for -stable and 3.1 - let's get it into > >> 3.2 first, and make sure no one sees any regressions there.  Then we can > >> think about submitting it to stable once its proven itself. > > > > And we're seeing link failures with the patch in the kernel, so it's > > *definitely* not stable material as it stands, even if the current code > > is a problem for GCC 4.6. > > > > Regressions trump bug fixes. > > Can you point me to the link failures please? There's two emails during the last couple of months on lakml: 3.1-rc1 link failure Link failures due to __bug_table in current -next The former I looked into and came to the conclusion that the only way to solve it is to stop using asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.S in its entirety and go back to hand-coding ARMs vmlinux.lds file. No one's come forward with any better suggestion to fix this, so I'm getting very close to having to make a decision over this. I think I'm going to have to drop the generic bug support for the time being.