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
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 03:43:13PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 09:26:49AM -0500, Ramirez Luna, Omar wrote:

quoted

Hi

On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Rabin Vincent [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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.