| Message ID | 20221114102327.6d53341e@canb.auug.org.au (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree | expand |
Hi, On 11/14/22 00:23, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in: > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c > > between commit: > > b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)") > > from Linus' tree and commit: > > 801543b2593b ("drm/i915: stop including i915_irq.h from i915_trace.h") > > from the drm-intel tree. This is weird, because the: b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)") commit is in 6.1-rc1, so there can only be a conflict it 6.1-rc1 has not been back-merged into drm-intel yet ? Regards, Hans
On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On 11/14/22 00:23, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in: >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c >> >> between commit: >> >> b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)") >> >> from Linus' tree and commit: >> >> 801543b2593b ("drm/i915: stop including i915_irq.h from i915_trace.h") >> >> from the drm-intel tree. > > This is weird, because the: > > b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)") > > commit is in 6.1-rc1, so there can only be a conflict it 6.1-rc1 has not > been back-merged into drm-intel yet ? That's the reason it *is* a conflict, right? BR, Jani.
Hi, On 11/14/22 11:10, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 11/14/22 00:23, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in: >>> >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c >>> >>> between commit: >>> >>> b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)") >>> >>> from Linus' tree and commit: >>> >>> 801543b2593b ("drm/i915: stop including i915_irq.h from i915_trace.h") >>> >>> from the drm-intel tree. >> >> This is weird, because the: >> >> b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)") >> >> commit is in 6.1-rc1, so there can only be a conflict it 6.1-rc1 has not >> been back-merged into drm-intel yet ? > > That's the reason it *is* a conflict, right? Right what I was trying to say is that I am surprised that 6.1-rc1 has not been back-merged into drm-intel yet even though it has been released 4 weeks ago. I thought it was more or less standard process to backmerge rc1 soon after it is released ? Regards, Hans
On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On 11/14/22 11:10, Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 11/14/22 00:23, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in: >>>> >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c >>>> >>>> between commit: >>>> >>>> b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)") >>>> >>>> from Linus' tree and commit: >>>> >>>> 801543b2593b ("drm/i915: stop including i915_irq.h from i915_trace.h") >>>> >>>> from the drm-intel tree. >>> >>> This is weird, because the: >>> >>> b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)") >>> >>> commit is in 6.1-rc1, so there can only be a conflict it 6.1-rc1 has not >>> been back-merged into drm-intel yet ? >> >> That's the reason it *is* a conflict, right? > > Right what I was trying to say is that I am surprised that 6.1-rc1 has not > been back-merged into drm-intel yet even though it has been released > 4 weeks ago. Right, -ENOCOFFEE at my end. > I thought it was more or less standard process to backmerge rc1 soon after > it is released ? The delay may be because v6.1-rc1 brought in more regressions for us than any other -rc1 in recent memory. Our CI's been suffering, and our folks have been spending a lot of time debugging, bisecting and reporting. (And before you ask, yes, we're going to be more proactive in reporting issues we find in linux-next.) That said, Rodrigo's been in charge of drm-intel-next this cycle, maybe it's time to backmerge drm-next? BR, Jani.
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 01:02:46PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 11/14/22 11:10, Jani Nikula wrote: > >> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> On 11/14/22 00:23, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >>>> Hi all, > >>>> > >>>> Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in: > >>>> > >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c > >>>> > >>>> between commit: > >>>> > >>>> b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)") > >>>> > >>>> from Linus' tree and commit: > >>>> > >>>> 801543b2593b ("drm/i915: stop including i915_irq.h from i915_trace.h") > >>>> > >>>> from the drm-intel tree. > >>> > >>> This is weird, because the: > >>> > >>> b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)") > >>> > >>> commit is in 6.1-rc1, so there can only be a conflict it 6.1-rc1 has not > >>> been back-merged into drm-intel yet ? > >> > >> That's the reason it *is* a conflict, right? > > > > Right what I was trying to say is that I am surprised that 6.1-rc1 has not > > been back-merged into drm-intel yet even though it has been released > > 4 weeks ago. > > Right, -ENOCOFFEE at my end. > > > I thought it was more or less standard process to backmerge rc1 soon after > > it is released ? > > The delay may be because v6.1-rc1 brought in more regressions for us > than any other -rc1 in recent memory. Our CI's been suffering, and our > folks have been spending a lot of time debugging, bisecting and > reporting. (And before you ask, yes, we're going to be more proactive in > reporting issues we find in linux-next.) > > That said, Rodrigo's been in charge of drm-intel-next this cycle, maybe > it's time to backmerge drm-next? yeap, I'm on it... > > > BR, > Jani. > > -- > Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
diff --cc drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c index beba39a38c87,0438071f58cf..000000000000 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c
Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in: drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c between commit: b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)") from Linus' tree and commit: 801543b2593b ("drm/i915: stop including i915_irq.h from i915_trace.h") 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.