FAILED: patch "[PATCH] MIPS: Rename `sigill_r6' to `sigill_r2r6' in" failed to apply to 3.18-stable tree

PATCH [email protected] 2 participants 4 messages Jul 25, 2017

Subsystems (2)

Stable branch MIPS

lore

Share & tools

lore

[email protected]

author maintainer

2017-07-25 04:03 UTC #0 lore raw

The patch below does not apply to the 3.18-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <[email protected]>.

thanks,

greg k-h

------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------

Quoted 1 line

From 1f4edde422961397cf4470b347958c13c6a740bb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001

From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 00:09:23 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] MIPS: Rename sigill_r6' to sigill_r2r6' in
`__compute_return_epc_for_insn'

Use the more accurate `sigill_r2r6' name for the label used in the case of sending SIGILL in the absence of the instruction emulator for an earlier ISA level instruction that has been removed as from the R6 ISA, so that the `sigill_r6' name is freed for the situation where an R6 instruction is not supposed to be interpreted, because the executing processor does not support the R6 ISA.

Signed-off-by Maciej W. Rozycki <[email protected]>

Cc James Hogan <[email protected]>

Cc [email protected]

Cc [email protected] # 3.19+

Patchwork: https://patchwork.linux-mips.org/patch/16397/

Signed-off-by Ralf Baechle <[email protected]>

arch/mips/kernel/branch.c +8 -8

index 81b5608acd5c..df5c32b38408 100644
@@ -431,7 +431,7 @@ int __compute_return_epc_for_insn(struct pt_regs *regs,
 			/* Fall through */
 		case jr_op:
 			if (NO_R6EMU && insn.r_format.func == jr_op)
-				goto sigill_r6;
+				goto sigill_r2r6;
 			regs->cp0_epc = regs->regs[insn.r_format.rs];
 			break;
 		}

@@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ int __compute_return_epc_for_insn(struct pt_regs *regs,
 		switch (insn.i_format.rt) {
 		case bltzl_op:
 			if (NO_R6EMU)
-				goto sigill_r6;
+				goto sigill_r2r6;
 		case bltz_op:
 			if ((long)regs->regs[insn.i_format.rs] < 0) {
 				epc = epc + 4 + (insn.i_format.simmediate << 2);

@@ -459,7 +459,7 @@ int __compute_return_epc_for_insn(struct pt_regs *regs,
 
 		case bgezl_op:
 			if (NO_R6EMU)
-				goto sigill_r6;
+				goto sigill_r2r6;
 		case bgez_op:
 			if ((long)regs->regs[insn.i_format.rs] >= 0) {
 				epc = epc + 4 + (insn.i_format.simmediate << 2);

@@ -574,7 +574,7 @@ int __compute_return_epc_for_insn(struct pt_regs *regs,
 	 */
 	case beql_op:
 		if (NO_R6EMU)
-			goto sigill_r6;
+			goto sigill_r2r6;
 	case beq_op:
 		if (regs->regs[insn.i_format.rs] ==
 		    regs->regs[insn.i_format.rt]) {

@@ -588,7 +588,7 @@ int __compute_return_epc_for_insn(struct pt_regs *regs,
 
 	case bnel_op:
 		if (NO_R6EMU)
-			goto sigill_r6;
+			goto sigill_r2r6;
 	case bne_op:
 		if (regs->regs[insn.i_format.rs] !=
 		    regs->regs[insn.i_format.rt]) {

@@ -602,7 +602,7 @@ int __compute_return_epc_for_insn(struct pt_regs *regs,
 
 	case blezl_op: /* not really i_format */
 		if (!insn.i_format.rt && NO_R6EMU)
-			goto sigill_r6;
+			goto sigill_r2r6;
 	case blez_op:
 		/*
 		 * Compact branches for R6 for the

@@ -637,7 +637,7 @@ int __compute_return_epc_for_insn(struct pt_regs *regs,
 
 	case bgtzl_op:
 		if (!insn.i_format.rt && NO_R6EMU)
-			goto sigill_r6;
+			goto sigill_r2r6;
 	case bgtz_op:
 		/*
 		 * Compact branches for R6 for the

@@ -836,7 +836,7 @@ int __compute_return_epc_for_insn(struct pt_regs *regs,
 		current->comm);
 	force_sig(SIGILL, current);
 	return -EFAULT;
-sigill_r6:
+sigill_r2r6:
 	pr_info("%s: R2 branch but r2-to-r6 emulator is not preset - sending SIGILL.\n",
 		current->comm);
 	force_sig(SIGILL, current);

Greg KH

author maintainer

2017-07-25 04:10 UTC #1 lore raw

Quoted 5 lines · On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 09:03:23PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

The patch below does not apply to the 3.18-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <[email protected]>.

Sorry, no, this doesn't belong in 3.18, as you said in the patch itself, sorry for the noise.

greg k-h

Maciej W. Rozycki

2017-07-25 10:32 UTC #2 lore raw

Hi Greg,

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 4 lines
The patch below does not apply to the 3.18-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <[email protected]>.
Sorry, no, this doesn't belong in 3.18, as you said in the patch itself, sorry for the noise.

One of the rejected patches does belong though, so how do I mark the
backport up correctly for you with the original commit ID and any other information necessary for seamless processing?

Maciej

Greg KH

author maintainer

2017-07-25 14:05 UTC #3 lore raw

Quoted 7 lines · Maciej W. Rozycki

Hi Greg,
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 4 lines
The patch below does not apply to the 3.18-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <[email protected]>.

Quoted 6 lines

Quoted 2 lines
Sorry, no, this doesn't belong in 3.18, as you said in the patch itself, sorry for the noise.
One of the rejected patches does belong though, so how do I mark the
backport up correctly for you with the original commit ID and any other information necessary for seamless processing?

Just send it and say "this is commit id XXXX and needs to go to tree X.XX please" or something like that. The mailing list has tons of examples of this happening every day.

thanks,

greg k-h