From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-Id: <20120103223034.943625126@clark.kroah.org> Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 14:30:01 -0800 From: Greg KH To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, "David S. Miller" Subject: [43/67] sparc32: Be less strict in matching %lo part of relocation. In-Reply-To: <20120103223043.GA26738@kroah.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 3.0-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: "David S. Miller" [ Upstream commit b1f44e13a525d2ffb7d5afe2273b7169d6f2222e ] The "(insn & 0x01800000) != 0x01800000" test matches 'restore' but that is a legitimate place to see the %lo() part of a 32-bit symbol relocation, particularly in tail calls. Signed-off-by: David S. Miller Tested-by: Sergei Trofimovich Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- arch/sparc/mm/btfixup.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) --- a/arch/sparc/mm/btfixup.c +++ b/arch/sparc/mm/btfixup.c @@ -302,8 +302,7 @@ void __init btfixup(void) case 'i': /* INT */ if ((insn & 0xc1c00000) == 0x01000000) /* %HI */ set_addr(addr, q[1], fmangled, (insn & 0xffc00000) | (p[1] >> 10)); - else if ((insn & 0x80002000) == 0x80002000 && - (insn & 0x01800000) != 0x01800000) /* %LO */ + else if ((insn & 0x80002000) == 0x80002000) /* %LO */ set_addr(addr, q[1], fmangled, (insn & 0xffffe000) | (p[1] & 0x3ff)); else { prom_printf(insn_i, p, addr, insn);