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

Message-ID: <CAPM=9twwZ-u7_8sRRRf5kRnuRa44ixzM8dHZUs6f5wLnQi90Zw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:39:00 +1000
From: Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Animesh Manna <animesh.manna@...el.com>, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...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 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.

Dave.