2 questions about git and merging

2 questions about git and merging

[Rainer Koenig]

Hi,

a week ago I experienced problems on the skylake platform and got the
adivce to try out the drm-intel-nightly branch. I tried and it was a
success.

So after the initial "git clone" of the tree I tried to keep updated by
doing a "git pull" from time to time, but what's really strange is that
I got merge conflicts, usually in the file integration-manifest, but
sometimes also in source files.

That's looks somewhat weird because I didn't touch any of the files in
the tree and I thought that after cloning a frequent "git pull" will
keep me up to date without the need to resolve merge conflicts.

What is wrong with my thought? What did I do wrong?

Second, I pulled the "Linus"-tree today and found some log entries that
said
 Merge branch 'drm-fixes-4.1' of
git://people.freedesktop.org/~agd5f/linux into drm-fixes

and
 Merge tag 'drm-intel-fixes-2015-05-21' of
git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm-intel into drm-fixes

So I assumed, that the fix I proved to work one week ago now should also
be available in the "vanilla" tree. So I compiled that on my test
machine and got my bug back. :-(

So my other question is, how do fixes from drm-intel-nightly find their
weay into the "vanilla" linux tree? Is there some sort of process
description.

Thanks for any explanation
Rainer
-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (FH) Rainer Koenig
Project Manager Linux Clients
Dept. PDG WPS R&D SW OSE

Fujitsu Technology Solutions
Bürgermeister-Ullrich-Str. 100
86199 Augsburg
Germany

Telephone: +49-821-804-3321
Telefax:   +49-821-804-2131
Mail:      mailto:Rainer.Koenig@ts.fujitsu.com

Internet         ts.fujtsu.com
Company Details  ts.fujitsu.com/imprint.html
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: 2 questions about git and merging

[Daniel Vetter]

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 03:09:04PM +0200, Rainer Koenig wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> a week ago I experienced problems on the skylake platform and got the
> adivce to try out the drm-intel-nightly branch. I tried and it was a
> success.
> 
> So after the initial "git clone" of the tree I tried to keep updated by
> doing a "git pull" from time to time, but what's really strange is that
> I got merge conflicts, usually in the file integration-manifest, but
> sometimes also in source files.
> 
> That's looks somewhat weird because I didn't touch any of the files in
> the tree and I thought that after cloning a frequent "git pull" will
> keep me up to date without the need to resolve merge conflicts.
> 
> What is wrong with my thought? What did I do wrong?

-nigthly is a rebasing tree, git pull does the wrong thing for that. The
proper way to track rebasing branches is (assuming you have no local
patches that you want to keep):

$ git fetch origin
$ git reset --hard @{upstream}

> Second, I pulled the "Linus"-tree today and found some log entries that
> said
>  Merge branch 'drm-fixes-4.1' of
> git://people.freedesktop.org/~agd5f/linux into drm-fixes
> 
> and
>  Merge tag 'drm-intel-fixes-2015-05-21' of
> git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm-intel into drm-fixes
> 
> So I assumed, that the fix I proved to work one week ago now should also
> be available in the "vanilla" tree. So I compiled that on my test
> machine and got my bug back. :-(
> 
> So my other question is, how do fixes from drm-intel-nightly find their
> weay into the "vanilla" linux tree? Is there some sort of process
> description.

It takes a while. If the patch is in drm-intel-fixes, it will first got to
drm-fixes and then to vanilla upstream, then to stable kernels (if it's
cc: stable). You can check which branch a patch is in already with

$ git branch --contains $sha1

Add -r if you want to see all the remote branches too.

Cheers, Daniel

> 
> Thanks for any explanation
> Rainer
> -- 
> Dipl.-Inf. (FH) Rainer Koenig
> Project Manager Linux Clients
> Dept. PDG WPS R&D SW OSE
> 
> Fujitsu Technology Solutions
> Bürgermeister-Ullrich-Str. 100
> 86199 Augsburg
> Germany
> 
> Telephone: +49-821-804-3321
> Telefax:   +49-821-804-2131
> Mail:      mailto:Rainer.Koenig@ts.fujitsu.com
> 
> Internet         ts.fujtsu.com
> Company Details  ts.fujitsu.com/imprint.html
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: 2 questions about git and merging

[Jani Nikula]

On Tue, 26 May 2015, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 03:09:04PM +0200, Rainer Koenig wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> a week ago I experienced problems on the skylake platform and got the
>> adivce to try out the drm-intel-nightly branch. I tried and it was a
>> success.
>> 
>> So after the initial "git clone" of the tree I tried to keep updated by
>> doing a "git pull" from time to time, but what's really strange is that
>> I got merge conflicts, usually in the file integration-manifest, but
>> sometimes also in source files.
>> 
>> That's looks somewhat weird because I didn't touch any of the files in
>> the tree and I thought that after cloning a frequent "git pull" will
>> keep me up to date without the need to resolve merge conflicts.
>> 
>> What is wrong with my thought? What did I do wrong?
>
> -nigthly is a rebasing tree, git pull does the wrong thing for that. The
> proper way to track rebasing branches is (assuming you have no local
> patches that you want to keep):
>
> $ git fetch origin
> $ git reset --hard @{upstream}
>
>> Second, I pulled the "Linus"-tree today and found some log entries that
>> said
>>  Merge branch 'drm-fixes-4.1' of
>> git://people.freedesktop.org/~agd5f/linux into drm-fixes
>> 
>> and
>>  Merge tag 'drm-intel-fixes-2015-05-21' of
>> git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm-intel into drm-fixes
>> 
>> So I assumed, that the fix I proved to work one week ago now should also
>> be available in the "vanilla" tree. So I compiled that on my test
>> machine and got my bug back. :-(
>> 
>> So my other question is, how do fixes from drm-intel-nightly find their
>> weay into the "vanilla" linux tree? Is there some sort of process
>> description.
>
> It takes a while. If the patch is in drm-intel-fixes, it will first got to
> drm-fixes and then to vanilla upstream, then to stable kernels (if it's
> cc: stable). You can check which branch a patch is in already with

However we don't necessarily queue Skylake fixes to the current
development kernels through drm-intel-fixes/drm-fixes, as the Skylake
support there is anyway preliminary, the fix (I don't think we figured
out which exact commit it was, did we?) may only end up upstream after
the next merge window, i.e. at v4.2-rc1.

BR,
Jani.


>
> $ git branch --contains $sha1
>
> Add -r if you want to see all the remote branches too.
>
> Cheers, Daniel
>
>> 
>> Thanks for any explanation
>> Rainer
>> -- 
>> Dipl.-Inf. (FH) Rainer Koenig
>> Project Manager Linux Clients
>> Dept. PDG WPS R&D SW OSE
>> 
>> Fujitsu Technology Solutions
>> Bürgermeister-Ullrich-Str. 100
>> 86199 Augsburg
>> Germany
>> 
>> Telephone: +49-821-804-3321
>> Telefax:   +49-821-804-2131
>> Mail:      mailto:Rainer.Koenig@ts.fujitsu.com
>> 
>> Internet         ts.fujtsu.com
>> Company Details  ts.fujitsu.com/imprint.html
>> _______________________________________________
>> dri-devel mailing list
>> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
>
> -- 
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> http://blog.ffwll.ch
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: 2 questions about git and merging

[Rainer Koenig]

Am 26.05.2015 um 16:04 schrieb Daniel Vetter:

> -nigthly is a rebasing tree, git pull does the wrong thing for that. The
> proper way to track rebasing branches is (assuming you have no local
> patches that you want to keep):
> 
> $ git fetch origin
> $ git reset --hard @{upstream}

Thank you for the explanation.

Regards
Rainer
-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (FH) Rainer Koenig
Project Manager Linux Clients
Dept. PDG WPS R&D SW OSE

Fujitsu Technology Solutions
Bürgermeister-Ullrich-Str. 100
86199 Augsburg
Germany

Telephone: +49-821-804-3321
Telefax:   +49-821-804-2131
Mail:      mailto:Rainer.Koenig@ts.fujitsu.com

Internet         ts.fujtsu.com
Company Details  ts.fujitsu.com/imprint.html
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: 2 questions about git and merging

[Rainer Koenig]

Am 26.05.2015 um 17:17 schrieb Jani Nikula:

> However we don't necessarily queue Skylake fixes to the current
> development kernels through drm-intel-fixes/drm-fixes, as the Skylake
> support there is anyway preliminary, the fix (I don't think we figured
> out which exact commit it was, did we?) may only end up upstream after
> the next merge window, i.e. at v4.2-rc1.

I understand you from a software developers point of view. My real world
problem is simply explained, that we do prototype testing for Skylake
now with real physical hardware. This hardware should go into prodcution
whenever Intel decides to release the Skylake platform, probably in
Q4/2015. From that date on people can buy Skylake based PCs and
workstations and they probably want to run Linux on those machines.
But they don't want to compile their own kernel, they want to stuck with
whatever is in the distributions (e.g. RHEL, SLES, Ubuntu whatever). But
also distributions have merge windows for new hardware features and the
longer it takes for a patch to show up in the vanilla tree the later it
will show up in the individual distribution kernel. Working for a
hardware vendor I see that this is bad for business. :-)

Thanks a lot for the explanations anyway, learned a lot from that.

Best regards
Rainer
-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (FH) Rainer Koenig
Project Manager Linux Clients
Dept. PDG WPS R&D SW OSE

Fujitsu Technology Solutions
Bürgermeister-Ullrich-Str. 100
86199 Augsburg
Germany

Telephone: +49-821-804-3321
Telefax:   +49-821-804-2131
Mail:      mailto:Rainer.Koenig@ts.fujitsu.com

Internet         ts.fujtsu.com
Company Details  ts.fujitsu.com/imprint.html
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: 2 questions about git and merging

[Dave Airlie]

On 27 May 2015 at 01:17, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 May 2015, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 03:09:04PM +0200, Rainer Koenig wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> a week ago I experienced problems on the skylake platform and got the
>>> adivce to try out the drm-intel-nightly branch. I tried and it was a
>>> success.
>>>
>>> So after the initial "git clone" of the tree I tried to keep updated by
>>> doing a "git pull" from time to time, but what's really strange is that
>>> I got merge conflicts, usually in the file integration-manifest, but
>>> sometimes also in source files.
>>>
>>> That's looks somewhat weird because I didn't touch any of the files in
>>> the tree and I thought that after cloning a frequent "git pull" will
>>> keep me up to date without the need to resolve merge conflicts.
>>>
>>> What is wrong with my thought? What did I do wrong?
>>
>> -nigthly is a rebasing tree, git pull does the wrong thing for that. The
>> proper way to track rebasing branches is (assuming you have no local
>> patches that you want to keep):
>>
>> $ git fetch origin
>> $ git reset --hard @{upstream}
>>
>>> Second, I pulled the "Linus"-tree today and found some log entries that
>>> said
>>>  Merge branch 'drm-fixes-4.1' of
>>> git://people.freedesktop.org/~agd5f/linux into drm-fixes
>>>
>>> and
>>>  Merge tag 'drm-intel-fixes-2015-05-21' of
>>> git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm-intel into drm-fixes
>>>
>>> So I assumed, that the fix I proved to work one week ago now should also
>>> be available in the "vanilla" tree. So I compiled that on my test
>>> machine and got my bug back. :-(
>>>
>>> So my other question is, how do fixes from drm-intel-nightly find their
>>> weay into the "vanilla" linux tree? Is there some sort of process
>>> description.
>>
>> It takes a while. If the patch is in drm-intel-fixes, it will first got to
>> drm-fixes and then to vanilla upstream, then to stable kernels (if it's
>> cc: stable). You can check which branch a patch is in already with
>
> However we don't necessarily queue Skylake fixes to the current
> development kernels through drm-intel-fixes/drm-fixes, as the Skylake
> support there is anyway preliminary, the fix (I don't think we figured
> out which exact commit it was, did we?) may only end up upstream after
> the next merge window, i.e. at v4.2-rc1.

So 4.1 won't cut it on skylake? I'm not sure everyone in Intel is aware.

Dave.
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: 2 questions about git and merging

[Jani Nikula]

On Wed, 27 May 2015, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27 May 2015 at 01:17, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 May 2015, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 03:09:04PM +0200, Rainer Koenig wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> a week ago I experienced problems on the skylake platform and got the
>>>> adivce to try out the drm-intel-nightly branch. I tried and it was a
>>>> success.
>>>>
>>>> So after the initial "git clone" of the tree I tried to keep updated by
>>>> doing a "git pull" from time to time, but what's really strange is that
>>>> I got merge conflicts, usually in the file integration-manifest, but
>>>> sometimes also in source files.
>>>>
>>>> That's looks somewhat weird because I didn't touch any of the files in
>>>> the tree and I thought that after cloning a frequent "git pull" will
>>>> keep me up to date without the need to resolve merge conflicts.
>>>>
>>>> What is wrong with my thought? What did I do wrong?
>>>
>>> -nigthly is a rebasing tree, git pull does the wrong thing for that. The
>>> proper way to track rebasing branches is (assuming you have no local
>>> patches that you want to keep):
>>>
>>> $ git fetch origin
>>> $ git reset --hard @{upstream}
>>>
>>>> Second, I pulled the "Linus"-tree today and found some log entries that
>>>> said
>>>>  Merge branch 'drm-fixes-4.1' of
>>>> git://people.freedesktop.org/~agd5f/linux into drm-fixes
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>  Merge tag 'drm-intel-fixes-2015-05-21' of
>>>> git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm-intel into drm-fixes
>>>>
>>>> So I assumed, that the fix I proved to work one week ago now should also
>>>> be available in the "vanilla" tree. So I compiled that on my test
>>>> machine and got my bug back. :-(
>>>>
>>>> So my other question is, how do fixes from drm-intel-nightly find their
>>>> weay into the "vanilla" linux tree? Is there some sort of process
>>>> description.
>>>
>>> It takes a while. If the patch is in drm-intel-fixes, it will first got to
>>> drm-fixes and then to vanilla upstream, then to stable kernels (if it's
>>> cc: stable). You can check which branch a patch is in already with
>>
>> However we don't necessarily queue Skylake fixes to the current
>> development kernels through drm-intel-fixes/drm-fixes, as the Skylake
>> support there is anyway preliminary, the fix (I don't think we figured
>> out which exact commit it was, did we?) may only end up upstream after
>> the next merge window, i.e. at v4.2-rc1.
>
> So 4.1 won't cut it on skylake? I'm not sure everyone in Intel is aware.

My approach has been that I don't queue fixes to current development
kernels for platforms that still require i915.preliminary_hw_support=1
or CONFIG_DRM_I915_PRELIMINARY_HW_SUPPORT=y. Obviously same for
stable. I don't think this is unreasonable.

Basically preliminary means the implementation does not have feature
parity with the preceding platform, and is expected to be rough around
th edges.

Skylake still requires the preliminary flag even in
drm-intel-nightly. Damien, should we drop preliminary for Skylake in
v4.2? Or already in v4.1?

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: 2 questions about git and merging

[Daniel Vetter]

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 09:24:31AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 2015, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 27 May 2015 at 01:17, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 26 May 2015, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 03:09:04PM +0200, Rainer Koenig wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> a week ago I experienced problems on the skylake platform and got the
> >>>> adivce to try out the drm-intel-nightly branch. I tried and it was a
> >>>> success.
> >>>>
> >>>> So after the initial "git clone" of the tree I tried to keep updated by
> >>>> doing a "git pull" from time to time, but what's really strange is that
> >>>> I got merge conflicts, usually in the file integration-manifest, but
> >>>> sometimes also in source files.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's looks somewhat weird because I didn't touch any of the files in
> >>>> the tree and I thought that after cloning a frequent "git pull" will
> >>>> keep me up to date without the need to resolve merge conflicts.
> >>>>
> >>>> What is wrong with my thought? What did I do wrong?
> >>>
> >>> -nigthly is a rebasing tree, git pull does the wrong thing for that. The
> >>> proper way to track rebasing branches is (assuming you have no local
> >>> patches that you want to keep):
> >>>
> >>> $ git fetch origin
> >>> $ git reset --hard @{upstream}
> >>>
> >>>> Second, I pulled the "Linus"-tree today and found some log entries that
> >>>> said
> >>>>  Merge branch 'drm-fixes-4.1' of
> >>>> git://people.freedesktop.org/~agd5f/linux into drm-fixes
> >>>>
> >>>> and
> >>>>  Merge tag 'drm-intel-fixes-2015-05-21' of
> >>>> git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm-intel into drm-fixes
> >>>>
> >>>> So I assumed, that the fix I proved to work one week ago now should also
> >>>> be available in the "vanilla" tree. So I compiled that on my test
> >>>> machine and got my bug back. :-(
> >>>>
> >>>> So my other question is, how do fixes from drm-intel-nightly find their
> >>>> weay into the "vanilla" linux tree? Is there some sort of process
> >>>> description.
> >>>
> >>> It takes a while. If the patch is in drm-intel-fixes, it will first got to
> >>> drm-fixes and then to vanilla upstream, then to stable kernels (if it's
> >>> cc: stable). You can check which branch a patch is in already with
> >>
> >> However we don't necessarily queue Skylake fixes to the current
> >> development kernels through drm-intel-fixes/drm-fixes, as the Skylake
> >> support there is anyway preliminary, the fix (I don't think we figured
> >> out which exact commit it was, did we?) may only end up upstream after
> >> the next merge window, i.e. at v4.2-rc1.
> >
> > So 4.1 won't cut it on skylake? I'm not sure everyone in Intel is aware.
> 
> My approach has been that I don't queue fixes to current development
> kernels for platforms that still require i915.preliminary_hw_support=1
> or CONFIG_DRM_I915_PRELIMINARY_HW_SUPPORT=y. Obviously same for
> stable. I don't think this is unreasonable.
> 
> Basically preliminary means the implementation does not have feature
> parity with the preceding platform, and is expected to be rough around
> th edges.
> 
> Skylake still requires the preliminary flag even in
> drm-intel-nightly. Damien, should we drop preliminary for Skylake in
> v4.2? Or already in v4.1?

the planes abi in skl is still wrong, we expose both top plane both as the
new unified plane and through the cursor backwards interface the hw
provides. Until that's fixed (and that's not the case for 4.2) skl isn't
ready imo. It's a fairly small patch, we only need to stop registering the
legacy cursor plane and mark the top plane as the cursor one for backwards
abi purposes.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel