linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the amdgpu tree with the drm-misc tree

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]

Message-ID: <20220429111354.197c6dee@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Fri, 29 Apr 2022 11:13:54 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@...il.com>,
        Dave Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>
Cc:     Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        Intel Graphics <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        DRI <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
        Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the amdgpu tree with the drm-misc
 tree

Hi all,

On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 10:10:14 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 10:34:05 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the amdgpu tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   fee2ede15542 ("drm/ttm: rework bulk move handling v5")
> > 
> > from the drm-misc tree and commit:
> > 
> >   184a69ca4d41 ("drm/amdgpu: separate VM PT handling into amdgpu_vm_pt.c")
> > 
> > from the amdgpu tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (I used this file from the latter and added the following
> > patch) and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as
> > linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned
> > to your upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging.
> > You may also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the
> > conflicting tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts.
> > 
> > From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> > Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 10:28:53 +1000
> > Subject: [PATCH] fix up for "drm/ttm: rework bulk move handling v5"
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm_pt.c | 9 +++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm_pt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm_pt.c
> > index 958d7ed97882..a29933fa001f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm_pt.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm_pt.c
> > @@ -630,7 +630,14 @@ static void amdgpu_vm_pt_free(struct amdgpu_vm_bo_base *entry)
> >  
> >  	if (!entry->bo)
> >  		return;
> > +
> >  	shadow = amdgpu_bo_shadowed(entry->bo);
> > +	if (shadow) {
> > +		ttm_bo_set_bulk_move(&shadow->tbo, NULL);
> > +		amdgpu_bo_unref(&shadow);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	ttm_bo_set_bulk_move(&entry->bo->tbo, NULL);
> >  	entry->bo->vm_bo = NULL;
> >  	list_del(&entry->vm_status);
> >  	amdgpu_bo_unref(&shadow);
> > @@ -653,8 +660,6 @@ static void amdgpu_vm_pt_free_dfs(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
> >  	struct amdgpu_vm_pt_cursor cursor;
> >  	struct amdgpu_vm_bo_base *entry;
> >  
> > -	vm->bulk_moveable = false;
> > -
> >  	for_each_amdgpu_vm_pt_dfs_safe(adev, vm, start, cursor, entry)
> >  		amdgpu_vm_pt_free(entry);
> >  
> > -- 
> > 2.35.1  
> 
> This is now a conflict between the drm tree and the amdgpu tree.

I noticed that commit 184a69ca4d41 was merged into the drm tree but
only the second hunk of this merge fixup was applied.  So is the first
hunk above unnecessary?

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped