[PATCH 3.1-rc1] ARM: entry: fix wrong parameter used in do_thumb_abort

[PATCH 3.1-rc1] ARM: entry: fix wrong parameter used in do_thumb_abort

[Janusz Krzysztofik]

Commit be020f8618ca, "ARM: entry: abort-macro: specify registers to be
used for macros", while replacing register numbers with macro parameter
names, mismatched the parameter used for r1. For me, this resulted in 
user space, built for EABI with -march=armv4t -mtune=arm920t -mthumb-
interwork -mthumb, broken on my OMAP1510 based Amstrad Delta (old ABI 
with -mno-thumb still worked for me though).

Fix this by using correct parameter, fsr, instead of mismatched psr, 
used by callers for another purpose.

Tested on OMAP1510 Amstrad Delta

Signed-off-by: Janusz Krzysztofik <jkrzyszt@tis.icnet.pl>
---
 arch/arm/mm/abort-macro.S |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/abort-macro.S b/arch/arm/mm/abort-macro.S
index 52162d5..2cbf68e 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mm/abort-macro.S
+++ b/arch/arm/mm/abort-macro.S
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
 	cmp	\tmp, # 0x5600			@ Is it ldrsb?
 	orreq	\tmp, \tmp, #1 << 11		@ Set L-bit if yes
 	tst	\tmp, #1 << 11			@ L = 0 -> write
-	orreq	\psr, \psr, #1 << 11		@ yes.
+	orreq	\fsr, \fsr, #1 << 11		@ yes.
 	b	do_DataAbort
 not_thumb:
 	.endm
-- 
1.7.3.4

[PATCH 3.1-rc1] ARM: entry: fix wrong parameter used in do_thumb_abort

[Janusz Krzysztofik]

Any plans to fix this regression before the rc cycle is over, or at 
least explain why it won't be fixed?

Any special requirements as to the process of submitting bug fixes 
against arch/arm common bits?

Thanks,
Janusz

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 at 13:07:20, Janusz Krzysztofik wrote:
> Commit be020f8618ca, "ARM: entry: abort-macro: specify registers to
> be used for macros", while replacing register numbers with macro
> parameter names, mismatched the parameter used for r1. For me, this
> resulted in user space, built for EABI with -march=armv4t
> -mtune=arm920t -mthumb- interwork -mthumb, broken on my OMAP1510
> based Amstrad Delta (old ABI with -mno-thumb still worked for me
> though).
> 
> Fix this by using correct parameter, fsr, instead of mismatched psr,
> used by callers for another purpose.
> 
> Tested on OMAP1510 Amstrad Delta
> 
> Signed-off-by: Janusz Krzysztofik <jkrzyszt@tis.icnet.pl>
> ---
>  arch/arm/mm/abort-macro.S |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/abort-macro.S b/arch/arm/mm/abort-macro.S
> index 52162d5..2cbf68e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mm/abort-macro.S
> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/abort-macro.S
> @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
>  	cmp	\tmp, # 0x5600			@ Is it ldrsb?
>  	orreq	\tmp, \tmp, #1 << 11		@ Set L-bit if yes
>  	tst	\tmp, #1 << 11			@ L = 0 -> write
> -	orreq	\psr, \psr, #1 << 11		@ yes.
> +	orreq	\fsr, \fsr, #1 << 11		@ yes.
>  	b	do_DataAbort
>  not_thumb:
>  	.endm

[PATCH 3.1-rc1] ARM: entry: fix wrong parameter used in do_thumb_abort

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 01:10:08PM +0200, Janusz Krzysztofik wrote:
> Any plans to fix this regression before the rc cycle is over, or at 
> least explain why it won't be fixed?

Apart from the patch being buried beneath a ton of email, and then
being shuffled off into my "August 2011" mailbox which doesn't get
looked at... no.

> Any special requirements as to the process of submitting bug fixes 
> against arch/arm common bits?

It needs to go into the patch system for merging so that it doesn't
get buried and forgotten - as already demonstrated.

[PATCH 3.1-rc1] ARM: entry: fix wrong parameter used in do_thumb_abort

[Janusz Krzysztofik]

On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 at 13:47:40 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 01:10:08PM +0200, Janusz Krzysztofik wrote:
> > Any special requirements as to the process of submitting bug fixes
> > against arch/arm common bits?
> 
> It needs to go into the patch system for merging so that it doesn't
> get buried and forgotten - as already demonstrated.

Still not sure: am I suppposed to do something for the patch to go to 
the patch system? Or do you take care of this?

Thanks,
Janusz

[PATCH 3.1-rc1] ARM: entry: fix wrong parameter used in do_thumb_abort

[Janusz Krzysztofik]

On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 at 19:58:47 Janusz Krzysztofik wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 at 13:47:40 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 01:10:08PM +0200, Janusz Krzysztofik wrote:
> > > Any special requirements as to the process of submitting bug
> > > fixes against arch/arm common bits?
> > 
> > It needs to go into the patch system for merging so that it doesn't
> > get buried and forgotten - as already demonstrated.
> 
> Still not sure: am I suppposed to do something for the patch to go to
> the patch system? Or do you take care of this?

OK, instead of waiting for your answer, I've found an interface to your 
patch system myself and submitted the patch.

Next time, for how long after posting a patch to the linux-arm-kernel 
lists should I wait for comments before I can submit it to the patch 
system even if there are no signs of the patch being reviewed? IOW, can 
I assume you accept a patch if you don't comment it for a certain period 
of time?

Thanks,
Janusz