Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the drm-intel tree

Joonas Lahtinen
2020-10-02T10:18:13Z

Quoting Daniel Vetter (2020-10-01 18:13:26)
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 5:08 PM Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 01 Oct 2020, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 3:53 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 08:39:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >> > Hi all,
> > >> >
> > >> > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in:
> > >> >
> > >> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_pages.c
> > >> >
> > >> > between commit:
> > >> >
> > >> > 4caf017ee937 ("drm/i915/gem: Avoid implicit vmap for highmem on x86-32")
> > >> > ba2ebf605d5f ("drm/i915/gem: Prevent using pgprot_writecombine() if PAT is not supported")
> > >
> > > Uh these patches shouldn't be in linux-next because they're for 5.11,
> > > not the 5.10 merge window that will open soon. Joonas?
> >
> > I don't know anything else, but both are tagged Cc: stable.
>
> Uh right I got confused, they're on -fixes now. Well -next-fixes,
> which seems like the wrong one for a cc: stable, I guess this should
> go into 5.9 even. Apologies for my confusion.

Yep, they happen to be Fixes: (Cc: stable even) so I asked Rodrigo to
pull them to drm-intel-next-fixes.

If they weren't Fixes: then indeed they would only have been queued for
5.11.

With regards to 5.9, due to the hiccup of doing the split PR, all the
-fixes for GT area were in limbo until -rc7. We didn't feel comfortable
including all the new commits this late in the cycle, so we agreed stable
porting those will be more appropriate.

Regards, Joonas

> -Daniel
>
> >
> > BR,
> > Jani.
> >
> > >
> > >> > from the drm-intel tree and patch:
> > >> >
> > >> > "drm/i915: use vmap in i915_gem_object_map"
> > >> >
> > >> > from the akpm tree.
> > >> >
> > >> > I fixed it up (I just dropped the changes in the former commits) and
> > >>
> > >> Sigh. The solution is a bit more complicated, but I just redid my
> > >> patches to not depend on the above ones. I can revert back to the old
> > >> version, though. Andrew, let me know what works for you.
> > >
> > > Imo ignore, rebasing onto linux-next without those intel patches was
> > > the right thing for the 5.10 merge window.
> > > -Daniel
> >
> > --
> > Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> http://blog.ffwll.ch