linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] drm for 6.9-rc1

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]

Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:34:10 +0200
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>
To: Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Linus Torvalds
 <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Animesh Manna <animesh.manna@...el.com>, Daniel Vetter
 <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>, dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
 LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] drm for 6.9-rc1

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024, Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 11:49, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 21:07, Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I've done a trial merge into your tree from a few hours ago, there
>> > are definitely some slighty messy conflicts, I've pushed a sample
>> > branch here:
>>
>> I appreciate your sample merges since I like verifying my end result,
>> but I think your merge is wrong.
>>
>> I got two differences when I did the merge. The one in
>> intel_dp_detect() I think is just syntactic - I ended up placing the
>>
>>         if (!intel_dp_is_edp(intel_dp))
>>                 intel_psr_init_dpcd(intel_dp);
>>
>> differently than you did (I did it *after* the tunnel_detect()).
>>
>> I don't _think,_ that placement matters, but somebody more familiar
>> with the code should check it out. Added Animesh and Jani to the
>> participants.
>>
>> But I think your merge gets the TP_printk() for the xe_bo_move trace
>> event is actively wrong. You don't have the destination for the move
>> in the printk.
>>
>> Or maybe I got it wrong. Our merges end up _close_, but not identical.
>
> You are right, I lost a line there, I've repushed mine just for
> prosperity with that fixed.
>
> The other one I'm not sure on and will defer to the i915 maintainers
> if ordering matters.

I don't think the ordering matters, but Linus' solution matches what we
have in our -next, and has been tested.

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel