sparc32: Be less strict in matching %lo part of relocation.
David S. Miller [Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:05:22 +0000 (10:05 -0800)]
[ 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 <davem@davemloft.net>
Tested-by: Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@gentoo.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
Change-Id: I588195deba991fe368241abdc4f270d6d3792e7d
Reviewed-on: http://git-master/r/74205
Reviewed-by: Varun Wadekar <vwadekar@nvidia.com>
Tested-by: Varun Wadekar <vwadekar@nvidia.com>

arch/sparc/mm/btfixup.c

index 5175ac2..8a7f817 100644 (file)
@@ -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);