linux-kernel - Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 00/17] drm: cleanup: Use DRM_MODESET_LOCK_ALL

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 4 Oct 2021 11:19:01 +0300
From:   Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Fernando Ramos <greenfoo@....eu>
Cc:     Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 00/17] drm: cleanup: Use
 DRM_MODESET_LOCK_ALL_* helpers where possible

On Sun, Oct 03, 2021 at 12:32:14AM +0200, Fernando Ramos wrote:
> On 21/10/02 09:13AM, Fernando Ramos wrote:
> > 
> > Sean, could you revert the whole patch series? I'll have a deeper look into the
> > patch set and come up with a v3 where all these issues will be addressed.
> > 
> 
> Hi Sean,
> 
> I now understand the nature of the issue that caused the problem with i915 and
> have proceed to remove the global context structure (which revealed a similar
> issue in the amdgpu driver).
> 
> I have prepared a V3 version of the patch set where these issues should
> hopefully be fixed for both the i915 and amdgpu drivers.
> 
> In order to prevent causing more disruption, could you tell me what the proper
> way to proceed would be? In particular:
> 
>   1. Is there any place where I can push my changes so that they are tested
>      on a i915 machine? (Some type of automated pool)

cc:intel-gfx, which it looks like you did, _but_ your patches did
did not even apply against drm-tip so our CI rejected it. There was
a reply to the patches from CI indicating that. And that is one
reason I probably just ignored the whole thing. If it doesn't
even apply/build it's not worth my time to read.

> 
>   2. I can test the amdgpu driver on my machine but, what about all the other
>      architectures? What is the standard procedure? Should I simply publish V3
>      and wait for feedback from the different vendors? (I would hate to cause a
>      simular situation again)
> 
>   3. Should I post V3 on top of drm-next or drm-misc-next?

The normal rule is: always work on drm-tip. That is what gets
tested by our CI as well. Yes, it does mean a bit of extra hurdles
during development since drm-tip is a rebasing tree, but there are
tools like dim retip to help out here.

As for where to merge them. I would generally recommed against merging
i915 patches through drm-misc unless there is a very compelling reason
to do so. i915 is a fast moving target and if there are significant
changes coming in via drm-misc they usually will cause conflicts for
people during drm-tip rebuild. Also I would expect to see an ack
requested from i915 maintainers for merging anything significant via
drm-misc, which I don't think happened in this case.

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel