linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] drm fixes for 5.7-rc8/final

Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Date:   Fri, 29 May 2020 06:32:58 -0700
From:   Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>
To:     Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [git pull] drm fixes for 5.7-rc8/final

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:15:27PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 12:02, Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 11:49, Linus Torvalds
> > <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 5:21 PM Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Seems to have wound down nicely, a couple of i915 fixes, amdgpu fixes
> > > > and minor ingenic fixes.
> > >
> > > Dave, this doesn't even build. WTF?
> > >
> > > In drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_lrc.c, there's a
> > > engine_heartbeat_disable() function that takes two arguments, but the
> > > new "live_timeslice_nopreempt()" gives it only one.
> > >
> > > I'd blame a merge problem, since the failure is in new code, but the
> > > problem exists in your top-of-tree, not just my merge.
> > >
> > > In fact, it's not even your merge of the i915 tree that is the source
> > > of the problem (although the fact that you clearly didn't _test_ the
> > > end result most definitely is _part_ of the problem!).
> > >
> > > Because the problem exists in the commit that introduced that thing:
> > > commit 1f65efb624c4 ("drm/i915/gt: Prevent timeslicing into
> > > unpreemptable requests").
> > >
> > > It's garbage, and never compiled.
> >
> > I thought I'd dropped the ball completely. but I see it's a selftest
> > failure, I must not have selftests built in my config here, I don't do
> > exhaustive builds randconfig
> >
> > This has also been built by Intel, but I'm assuming they missed their
> > selftest bits as well.
> >
> > I'll revert that and resend.
> 
> I did drop the ball in one way, I see sfr reported it broken this morning
> 
> I normally expect stuff coming from Intel has been through their CI,
> even their fixes tree generally gets pushed through that system before
> I get it, and it usually catches these things.
> 
> I might have to push back on intel fixes this late in the day, as
> maybe the land on next and cherry-pick to fixes model has made them a
> bit lax on how much stuff goes through CI.
> 
> I've just drop the whole i915 fixes from the tree and will resend with
> it removed.

Yes, that was my fault. I also didn't have the selftest on my drm-intel-fixes
build and I confused the build run numbers when checking the
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-intel-fixes/index.html?
before sending...

If we have another round next week I will make sure CI runs well before
sending another pull request.

Sorry,
Rodrigo.

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

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