lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 3 Jan 2017 13:37:17 -0700
From:   Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>
Cc:     Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        Intel Graphics <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        DRI <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: build failure after merge of the
 drm-intel-fixes tree

On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 15:25:24 +0200
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 03 Jan 2017, Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On 2017.01.02 21:48:57 -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:  
> >> > Alex, I liked to have kvmgt related mdev interface change be merged through
> >> > vfio tree, but wasn't awared one of Jike's fix had conflict. Could you apply
> >> > below fix in your tree? I think in general for possible interface change in
> >> > future we still need a pull request for i915 to resolve dependence earlier.  
> >> 
> >> Hi Zhenyu,
> >> 
> >> Hopefully this abstraction will help to isolate vendor drivers from
> >> mdev API changes in the future.  I can certainly roll this patch into
> >> the original to maintain bisectability.  I want to get these changes in
> >> for rc3, will a pull request for the i915 changes be sent this week?  
> >
> > Send to Jani who is managing i915 fixes pull.  
> 
> Send what to me? I've pushed fixes to drm-intel-fixes today for testing,
> and expect to send a pull request to Dave early Thursday. If there's a
> conflict, it can usually be solved while merging, like Stephen has done.

Unless there's some preference otherwise, I was only asking if the i915
changes were queued for rc3 such that I could trail behind them and
fixup the mdev API change without relying on it getting caught in the
merge.  If we're happy to do it at merge time, I won't worry about it.
Thanks,

Alex

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ