Re: gvt gem fixes

Daniel Vetter
2016-10-20T07:02:50Z

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 08:33:05AM +0800, Zhenyu Wang wrote:
> On 2016.10.19 12:02:58 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 06:45:51PM +0800, Zhenyu Wang wrote:
> > > On 2016.10.19 11:11:35 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > I think this is the set required to bring gvt into line, at least to
> > > > unblock myself.
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot, Chris. I'd like to merge this in next pull request,
> > > or let me know you want to be picked up by drm-intel directly.
> > > If 4/12 would be picked up alone, I'll skip that one in gvt tree.
> >
> > If you are confident in having the pull ready in the next day or so,
> > I'll just preface my series with these and they will evaporate after the
> > merge.
> >
>
> I'll try to send it today.
>
> > I'll apply 4/12 right now to get that out of the way.
>
> ok, fine.

Yeah, I think anything that touches i915 code should get merged through
drm-intel directly with the usual process. Only exception is when gvt has
a functional depency and it's a small patch, then I think we can sometimes
merge i915 core patches through gvt, with an ack from Jani or me (and
still proper review and CI and everything ofc). But that should be the
rare exception.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation