| Message ID | 20171016113529.ey35y6zwfyhdbvhe@sirena.co.uk (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in: > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > between commit: > > b85577b72837e ("drm/i915: Order two completing nop_submit_request") > > from the drm-intel-fixes tree and commit: > > 5d031f4e1618b ("drm/i915: Stop asserting on set-wedged vs nop_submit_request ordering") > > from the drm-intel tree. > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This > is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial > conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree > is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating > with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly > complex conflicts. This merge seems fine, but it seems there was another merge against the akpm tree that introduced a build error by reintroducing the spin_lock_irqsave() without restoring the local variable: drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c: In function 'nop_submit_request': drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c:3092:54: error: 'flags' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'class'? I'll send my local build fix, which may or may not be the intended behavior but gets it to compile. Arnd
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:11:53AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > This merge seems fine, but it seems there was another merge > against the akpm tree that introduced a build error by reintroducing > the spin_lock_irqsave() without restoring the local variable: > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c: In function 'nop_submit_request': > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c:3092:54: error: 'flags' undeclared > (first use in this function); did you mean 'class'? > I'll send my local build fix, which may or may not be the intended > behavior but gets it to compile. Bother, that was actually an automated merge git did.
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c index bace56523e9f..4fdebca8ff40 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c @@ -3089,20 +3089,14 @@ static void nop_submit_request(struct drm_i915_gem_request *request) { unsigned long flags; - GEM_BUG_ON(!i915_terminally_wedged(&request->i915->gpu_error)); dma_fence_set_error(&request->fence, -EIO); - - spin_lock_irqsave(&request->engine->timeline->lock, flags); - __i915_gem_request_submit(request); - intel_engine_init_global_seqno(request->engine, request->global_seqno); - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&request->engine->timeline->lock, flags); + i915_gem_request_submit(request); } static void nop_complete_submit_request(struct drm_i915_gem_request *request) { unsigned long flags; - GEM_BUG_ON(!i915_terminally_wedged(&request->i915->gpu_error)); dma_fence_set_error(&request->fence, -EIO); spin_lock_irqsave(&request->engine->timeline->lock, flags);
Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in: drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c between commit: b85577b72837e ("drm/i915: Order two completing nop_submit_request") from the drm-intel-fixes tree and commit: 5d031f4e1618b ("drm/i915: Stop asserting on set-wedged vs nop_submit_request ordering") from the drm-intel tree. I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts.