linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the usb tree with the drm-intel-fixes 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: <fed121a6-8ad8-676b-ff6b-f7c6611058ca@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Feb 2023 10:37:06 -0800
From:   John Harrison <john.c.harrison@...el.com>
To:     Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
CC:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Intel Graphics <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        DRI <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        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 usb tree with the drm-intel-fixes
 tree

On 2/1/2023 07:31, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 03:11:31PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 10:27:29 -0800 John Harrison <john.c.harrison@...el.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/31/2023 04:44, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 01:03:05PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>>> Today's linux-next merge of the usb tree got a conflict in:
>>>>>
>>>>>     drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c
>>>>>
>>>>> between commit:
>>>>>
>>>>>     5bc4b43d5c6c ("drm/i915: Fix up locking around dumping requests lists")
>>>>>
>>>>> from the drm-intel-fixes tree and commit:
>>>>>
>>>>>     4d70c74659d9 ("i915: Move list_count() to list.h as list_count_nodes() for broader use")
>>>>>
>>>>> from the usb tree.
>>>>>
>>>>> I fixed it up (the former removed the code changed by the latter)
>>>> Hmm... Currently I see that 20230127002842.3169194-4-John.C.Harrison@...el.com
>>>> moves the code to the drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c.
>>>>
>>>> Is there any new series beside the above mentioned that touches that file and
>>>> actually _removes_ that code?
>>> As long as the removal is limited to list_count/list_count_nodes,
>>> that's fine. I only moved it from one file to another because the one
>>> and only function that was using it was being moved to the other
>>> file. If someone else has found a use for the same and wants to move
>>> it to a more common place then great. I assume there was no conflict
>>> happening in the i915 specific code.
>> I have added this fix up patch to linux-next today (more or less - this
>> is a hand hacked version, but you get the idea):
>>
>> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
>> Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2023 13:13:01 +1100
>> Subject: [PATCH] i915: fix up for "drm/i915: Fix up locking around dumping requests lists"
>>
>> interacting with "i915: Move list_count() to list.h as list_count_nodes() for broader use"
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
>> ---
>>   .../gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c    | 15 +------------
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertion(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
>> index 3c573d41d404..e919d41a48d9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
>> @@ -4150,17 +4150,6 @@ void intel_execlists_show_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
>>   	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sched_engine->lock, flags);
>>   }
>>   
>> -static unsigned long list_count(struct list_head *list)
>> -{
>> -	struct list_head *pos;
>> -	unsigned long count = 0;
>> -
>> -	list_for_each(pos, list)
>> -		count++;
>> -
>> -	return count;
>> -}
>> -
>>   void intel_execlists_dump_active_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
>>   					  struct i915_request *hung_rq,
>>   					  struct drm_printer *m)
>> @@ -4172,7 +4161,7 @@ void intel_execlists_dump_active_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
>>   	intel_engine_dump_active_requests(&engine->sched_engine->requests, hung_rq, m);
>>   
>> -	drm_printf(m, "\tOn hold?: %lu\n",
>> -		   list_count(&engine->sched_engine->hold));
>> +	drm_printf(m, "\tOn hold?: %zu\n",
>> +		   list_count_nodes(&engine->sched_engine->hold));
> something awkward here.
> The resolution on linux-next should align with the resolution on drm-tip
> where we have the list_count still there as we preferred the version
> on drm-intel-gt-next as the resolution of the conflict instead of the
> fixes one.
Not following why you want to keep list_count as a local function in the 
i915 driver? Surely the correct fix is to move it to the common header 
and share the code? In which case, the correct name is 
list_count_nodes() as that is what got merged to the common header.

John.

>
>>   
>>   	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&engine->sched_engine->lock, flags);
>>   }
>> -- 
>> 2.35.1
>>
>> -- 
>> Cheers,
>> Stephen Rothwell
>