[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8737h0i8cb.fsf@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 15:25:24 +0200
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>
To: Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc: 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, 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.
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
Powered by blists - more mailing lists