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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87ee912ngg.fsf@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 04 Oct 2021 11:39:27 +0300
From:   Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>,
        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 Mon, 04 Oct 2021, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> 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.

Indeed. All other things aside, it looks like it has enough conflict
potential to warrant merging via drm-intel anyway.

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center