modifying Makefile extraver
lib: add generic strnlen_user() function

This adds a new generic optimized strnlen_user() function that uses the
<asm/word-at-a-time.h> infrastructure to portably do efficient string
handling.

In many ways, strnlen is much simpler than strncpy, and in particular we
can always pre-align the words we load from memory.  That means that all
the worries about alignment etc are a non-issue, so this one can easily
be used on any architecture.  You obviously do have to do the
appropriate word-at-a-time.h macros.

Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

Signed-off-by: Zarboz <zarboz@gmail.com>
lib: Fix generic strnlen_user for 32-bit big-endian machines

The aligned_byte_mask() definition is wrong for 32-bit big-endian
machines: the "7-(n)" part of the definition assumes a long is 8
bytes.  This fixes it by using BITS_PER_LONG - 8 instead of 8*7.
Tested on 32-bit and 64-bit PowerPC.

Signed-off-by: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
ARM: use generic strnlen_user and strncpy_from_user functions

This patch implements the word-at-a-time interface for ARM using the
same algorithm as x86. We use the fls macro from ARMv5 onwards, where
we have a clz instruction available which saves us a mov instruction
when targetting Thumb-2. For older CPUs, we use the magic 0x0ff0001
constant. Big-endian configurations make use of the implementation from
asm-generic.

With this implemented, we can replace our byte-at-a-time strnlen_user
and strncpy_from_user functions with the optimised generic versions.

Reviewed-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
modified for Mako from LKML reference

Signed-off-by: faux123 <reioux@gmail.com>

Conflicts:
	arch/arm/include/asm/uaccess.h
	arch/arm/kernel/armksyms.c
ARM: dcache: select DCACHE_WORD_ACCESS for little-endian ARMv6+ CPUs

DCACHE_WORD_ACCESS uses the word-at-a-time API for optimised string
comparisons in the vfs layer.

This patch implements support for load_unaligned_zeropad for ARM CPUs
with native support for unaligned memory accesses (v6+) when running
little-endian.

Reviewed-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
ARM: 7493/1: use generic unaligned.h

This moves ARM over to the asm-generic/unaligned.h header. This has the
benefit of better code generated especially for ARMv7 on gcc 4.7+
compilers.

As Arnd Bergmann, points out: The asm-generic version uses the "struct"
version for native-endian unaligned access and the "byteshift" version
for the opposite endianess. The current ARM version however uses the
"byteshift" implementation for both.

Thanks to Nicolas Pitre for the excellent analysis:

Test case:

int foo (int *x) { return get_unaligned(x); }
long long bar (long long *x) { return get_unaligned(x); }

With the current ARM version:

foo:
	ldrb	r3, [r0, #2]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B]
	ldrb	r1, [r0, #1]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B]
	ldrb	r2, [r0, #0]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)]
	mov	r3, r3, asl #16	@ tmp154, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B],
	ldrb	r0, [r0, #3]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B]
	orr	r3, r3, r1, asl #8	@, tmp155, tmp154, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B],
	orr	r3, r3, r2	@ tmp157, tmp155, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)]
	orr	r0, r3, r0, asl #24	@,, tmp157, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B],
	bx	lr	@

bar:
	stmfd	sp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7}	@,
	mov	r2, #0	@ tmp184,
	ldrb	r5, [r0, #6]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 6B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 6B]
	ldrb	r4, [r0, #5]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 5B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 5B]
	ldrb	ip, [r0, #2]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B]
	ldrb	r1, [r0, #4]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 4B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 4B]
	mov	r5, r5, asl #16	@ tmp175, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 6B],
	ldrb	r7, [r0, #1]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B]
	orr	r5, r5, r4, asl #8	@, tmp176, tmp175, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 5B],
	ldrb	r6, [r0, #7]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 7B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 7B]
	orr	r5, r5, r1	@ tmp178, tmp176, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 4B]
	ldrb	r4, [r0, #0]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)]
	mov	ip, ip, asl #16	@ tmp188, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B],
	ldrb	r1, [r0, #3]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B]
	orr	ip, ip, r7, asl #8	@, tmp189, tmp188, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B],
	orr	r3, r5, r6, asl #24	@,, tmp178, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 7B],
	orr	ip, ip, r4	@ tmp191, tmp189, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)]
	orr	ip, ip, r1, asl #24	@, tmp194, tmp191, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B],
	mov	r1, r3	@,
	orr	r0, r2, ip	@ tmp171, tmp184, tmp194
	ldmfd	sp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7}
	bx	lr

In both cases the code is slightly suboptimal.  One may wonder why
wasting r2 with the constant 0 in the second case for example.  And all
the mov's could be folded in subsequent orr's, etc.

Now with the asm-generic version:

foo:
	ldr	r0, [r0, #0]	@ unaligned	@,* x
	bx	lr	@

bar:
	mov	r3, r0	@ x, x
	ldr	r0, [r0, #0]	@ unaligned	@,* x
	ldr	r1, [r3, #4]	@ unaligned	@,
	bx	lr	@

This is way better of course, but only because this was compiled for
ARMv7. In this case the compiler knows that the hardware can do
unaligned word access.  This isn't that obvious for foo(), but if we
remove the get_unaligned() from bar as follows:

long long bar (long long *x) {return *x; }

then the resulting code is:

bar:
	ldmia	r0, {r0, r1}	@ x,,
	bx	lr	@

So this proves that the presumed aligned vs unaligned cases does have
influence on the instructions the compiler may use and that the above
unaligned code results are not just an accident.

Still... this isn't fully conclusive without at least looking at the
resulting assembly fron a pre ARMv6 compilation.  Let's see with an
ARMv5 target:

foo:
	ldrb	r3, [r0, #0]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp139,* x
	ldrb	r1, [r0, #1]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp140,
	ldrb	r2, [r0, #2]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp143,
	ldrb	r0, [r0, #3]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp146,
	orr	r3, r3, r1, asl #8	@, tmp142, tmp139, tmp140,
	orr	r3, r3, r2, asl #16	@, tmp145, tmp142, tmp143,
	orr	r0, r3, r0, asl #24	@,, tmp145, tmp146,
	bx	lr	@

bar:
	stmfd	sp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7}	@,
	ldrb	r2, [r0, #0]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp139,* x
	ldrb	r7, [r0, #1]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp140,
	ldrb	r3, [r0, #4]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp149,
	ldrb	r6, [r0, #5]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp150,
	ldrb	r5, [r0, #2]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp143,
	ldrb	r4, [r0, #6]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp153,
	ldrb	r1, [r0, #7]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp156,
	ldrb	ip, [r0, #3]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp146,
	orr	r2, r2, r7, asl #8	@, tmp142, tmp139, tmp140,
	orr	r3, r3, r6, asl #8	@, tmp152, tmp149, tmp150,
	orr	r2, r2, r5, asl #16	@, tmp145, tmp142, tmp143,
	orr	r3, r3, r4, asl #16	@, tmp155, tmp152, tmp153,
	orr	r0, r2, ip, asl #24	@,, tmp145, tmp146,
	orr	r1, r3, r1, asl #24	@,, tmp155, tmp156,
	ldmfd	sp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7}
	bx	lr

Compared to the initial results, this is really nicely optimized and I
couldn't do much better if I were to hand code it myself.

Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>
Reviewed-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org>
Tested-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
modified for Mako from kernel.org reference

Signed-off-by: faux123 <reioux@gmail.com>

Conflicts:
	arch/arm/include/asm/unaligned.h
ARM: 7492/1: add strstr declaration for decompressors

With the generic unaligned.h, more kernel headers get pulled in including
dynamic_debug.h which needs strstr. As it is not really used, we only need
a declaration here.

Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>
Tested-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
ARM: 7592/1: nommu: prevent generation of kernel unaligned memory accesses

Recent ARMv7 toolchains assume that unaligned memory accesses will not
fault and will instead be handled by the processor.

For the nommu case (without an MPU), memory will be treated as
strongly-ordered and therefore unaligned accesses may fault regardless
of the SCTLR.A setting.

This patch passes -mno-unaligned-access to GCC when compiling for nommu
targets, preventing the generation of unaligned memory access in the
kernel.

Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org>
Tested-by: Jonathan Austin <jonathan.austin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
ARM: 7593/1: nommu: do not enable DCACHE_WORD_ACCESS when
 !CONFIG_MMU

Commit b9a50f74905a ("ARM: 7450/1: dcache: select DCACHE_WORD_ACCESS for
little-endian ARMv6+ CPUs") added support for word-at-time path
comparisons, relying on the ability to perform unaligned loads with
negligible performance impact in hardware.

For nommu configurations without MPU support, this is unpredictable and
so we should fall back to the byte-by-byte routines.

Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org>
Tested-by: Jonathan Austin <jonathan.austin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
modified for Mako from kernel.org

Signed-off-by: faux123 <reioux@gmail.com>
decompress_unlzo: fix compilation error

Signed-off-by: faux123 <reioux@gmail.com>
switch the protection of percpu_counter list to spinlock

... making percpu_counter_destroy() non-blocking

Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Sound Control: Sound control for WCD93xx codec

Fully GPL'ed version.

Signed-off-by: faux123 <reioux@gmail.com>

Conflicts:
	sound/soc/codecs/Kconfig
	sound/soc/codecs/Makefile

Conflicts:
	sound/soc/codecs/Kconfig
	sound/soc/codecs/Makefile
arch/arm/kernel/armksyms: fix merge derp

Signed-off-by: Paul Reioux <reioux@gmail.com>
Voltage Control: allow for lower minimums

this allows the low CPU frequencies to take advantage of UV control

modified for HTC one

Signed-off-by: faux123 <reioux@gmail.com>

Signed-off-by: Zarboz <zarboz@gmail.com>
fs/dyn_fsync: check dyn fsync control's active prior to performing fsync ops

Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartholomew <andrewb03@gmail.com>

Conflicts:
	fs/sync.c
dynamic filesync: add some cache optimizations

and clean up file format and typos

bump version to 1.1

Signed-off-by: Paul Reioux <reioux@gmail.com>
dynamic fsync: favor true case since most will be using this feature

Signed-off-by: Paul Reioux <reioux@gmail.com>
hrtimer: Consider preemption when migrating hrtimer cpu_bases

Date	Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:07:47 -0700

When switching to a new cpu_base in switch_hrtimer_base(), we
briefly enable preemption by unlocking the cpu_base lock in two
places. During this interval it's possible for the running thread
to be swapped to a different CPU.

Consider the following example:

CPU #0                                 CPU #1
----                                   ----
hrtimer_start()                        ...
 lock_hrtimer_base()
 switch_hrtimer_base()
  this_cpu = 0;
  target_cpu_base = 0;
  raw_spin_unlock(&cpu_base->lock)
<migrate to CPU 1>
...                                    this_cpu == 0
                                       cpu == this_cpu
                                       timer->base = CPU #0
                                       timer->base != LOCAL_CPU
Since the cached this_cpu is no longer accurate, we'll skip the
hrtimer_check_target() check. Once we eventually go to program
the hardware, we'll decide not to do so since it knows the real
CPU that we're running on is not the same as the chosen base. As
a consequence, we may end up missing the hrtimer's deadline.

Fix this by updating the local CPU number each time we retake a
cpu_base lock in switch_hrtimer_base().

Another possibility is to disable preemption across the whole of
switch_hrtimer_base. This looks suboptimal since preemption
would be disabled while waiting for lock(s).

Signed-off-by: Michael Bohan <mbohan@codeaurora.org>