Include <asm/io.h> to fix the warning:

arch/arm/kernel/traps.c:647:6: warning: symbol '__readwrite_bug' was not declared. Should it be static?

Include <linux/mc146818rtc.h> to fix the warning:
arch/arm/kernel/time.c:42:1: warning: symbol 'rtc_lock' was not declared. Should it be static?

Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>

It appears that include/asm-arm/bug.h requires include/linux/stddef.h
for the definition of NULL. It seems that stddef.h was always included
indirectly in most cases, and that issue was properly fixed a while ago.

Then commit 5047f09b56d0bc3c21aec9cb16de60283da645c6 incorrectly reverted
change from commit ff10952a547dad934d9ed9afc5cf579ed1ccb53a (bad dwmw2)
and the problem recently resurfaced.

Because the third argument to __bug() is never used anyway, RMK suggested
getting rid of it entirely instead of readding #include <linux/stddef.h>
which this patch does.

Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>

Patch from Daniel Jacobowitz

The ARM kernel has several uses of asm("foo%?").  %? is a GCC internal
modifier used to output conditional execution predicates.  However, no
version of GCC supports conditionalizing asm statements.  GCC 4.2 will
correctly expand %? to the empty string in user asms.  Earlier versions may
reuse the condition from the previous instruction.  In 'if (foo) asm
("bar%?");' this is somewhat likely to be right... but not reliable.

So, the only safe thing to do is to remove the uses of %?.  I believe
the tlbflush.h occurances were supposed to be removed before, based
on the comment about %? not working at the top of that file.

Old versions of GCC could omit branches around user asms if the asm didn't
mark the condition codes as clobbered.  This problem hasn't been seen on any
recent (3.x or 4.x) GCC, but it could theoretically happen.  So, where
%? was removed a cc clobber was added.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@codesourcery.com>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>

Previously the message was "Fatal exception: panic_on_oops", as introduced
in a recent patch whith removed a somewhat dangerous call to ssleep() in
the panic_on_oops path.  However, Paul Mackerras suggested that this was
somewhat confusing, leadind people to believe that it was panic_on_oops
that was the root cause of the fatal exception.  On his suggestion, this
patch changes the message to simply "Fatal exception".  A suitable oops
message should already have been displayed.

Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>

This patch is part of an effort to unify the panic_on_oops behaviour across
all architectures that implement it.

It was pointed out to me by Andi Kleen that if an oops has occured in
interrupt context, then calling sleep() in the oops path will only cause a
panic, and that it would be really better for it not to be in the path at
all.

This patch removes the ssleep() call and reworks the console message
accordinly.  I have a slght concern that the resulting console message is
too long, feedback welcome.

For powerpc it also unifies the 32bit and 64bit behaviour.

Fror x86_64, this patch only updates the console message, as ssleep() is
already not present.

Signed-off-by: Horms <horms@verge.net.au>
Acked-by: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>
Cc: Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>

Signed-off-by: Jörn Engel <joern@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de>
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>

The high page vector (0xFFFF0000) does not supported in nommu mode.
This patch allows the vectors to be 0x00000000 or the begining of DRAM
in nommu mode.

Signed-off-by: Hyok S. Choi <hyok.choi@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>

Patch from Nicolas Pitre

Quoting RMK:

|pte_write() just says that the page _may_ be writable. It doesn't say
|that the MMU is programmed to allow writes. If pte_dirty() doesn't
|return true, that means that the page is _not_ writable from userspace.
|If you write to it from kernel mode (without using put_user) you'll
|bypass the MMU read-only protection and may end up writing to a page
|owned by two separate processes.

Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>

Although you could ask the kernel for panic-on-oops, it remained
non-functional because the architecture specific code fragment had
not been implemented.  Add it, so it works as advertised.

Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>