[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a0A0-gnBnBBuWdPjgoDMo=2P9yXcLjZYm9Yz+xpQnCyCw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 15:51:54 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v2] arm64: define BUG() instruction without CONFIG_BUG
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Catalin Marinas
<catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:39:21PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> This mirrors commit e9c38ceba8d9 ("ARM: 8455/1: define __BUG as
>> asm(BUG_INSTR) without CONFIG_BUG") to make the behavior of
>> arm64 consistent with arm and x86, and avoids lots of warnings in
>> randconfig builds, such as:
>>
>> kernel/seccomp.c: In function '__seccomp_filter':
>> kernel/seccomp.c:666:1: error: no return statement in function returning non-void [-Werror=return-type]
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
>
> A side-effect of this patch is that it turns WARN into BUG. I hit the
> WARN_ONCE in arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c:34 (on Juno with 64K pages) and
> with your patch applied, the kernel panics.
Taht was certainly not intended, and I don't see yet what exactly is going on.
What is your setting for CONFIG_BUG and CONFIG_BUGVERBOSE?
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists