linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drm-xe tree with the drm-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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <poz2mkphxsugh7blllzaz7x5bnrxfduz6mavyu3hou667jlzb5@wr65av6rcyoj>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2025 14:25:55 -0500
From: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>
To: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
CC: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Thomas Hellström
	<thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.com>, DRM XE List
	<intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List
	<linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@...el.com>,
	Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>, Zongyao Bai <zongyao.bai@...el.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drm-xe tree with the drm-fixes
 tree

On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 11:28:32AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
>Hi Mark,
>
>On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 01:45:19PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the drm-xe tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_submit.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>   ff89a4d285c82 ("drm/xe/sysfs: Add cleanup action in xe_device_sysfs_init")
>>
>> from the drm-fixes tree and commit:
>>
>>   fb3c27a69c473 ("drm/xe/sysfs: Simplify sysfs registration")
>>
>> from the drm-xe tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (see below) 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.
>>
>> diff --cc drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_sysfs.c
>> index b7f8fcfed8d86,c5151c86a98ae..0000000000000
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_sysfs.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_sysfs.c
>> @@@ -308,19 -290,15 +290,15 @@@ int xe_device_sysfs_init(struct xe_devi
>>   			return ret;
>>   	}
>>
>> - 	if (xe->info.platform == XE_BATTLEMAGE) {
>> - 		ret = sysfs_create_files(&dev->kobj, auto_link_downgrade_attrs);
>> + 	if (xe->info.platform == XE_BATTLEMAGE && !IS_SRIOV_VF(xe)) {
>> + 		ret = devm_device_add_group(dev, &auto_link_downgrade_attr_group);
>>   		if (ret)
>>  -			return ret;
>>  +			goto cleanup;
>>
>> - 		ret = late_bind_create_files(dev);
>> + 		ret = devm_device_add_group(dev, &late_bind_attr_group);
>>   		if (ret)
>>  -			return ret;
>>  +			goto cleanup;
>>   	}
>>
>> - 	return devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, xe_device_sysfs_fini, xe);
>> -
>> - cleanup:
>> - 	xe_device_sysfs_fini(xe);
>> - 	return ret;
>> + 	return 0;
>>   }
>
>This resolution breaks the build.
>
>  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_sysfs.c: In function 'xe_device_sysfs_init':
>  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_sysfs.c:300:25: error: label 'cleanup' used but not defined
>    300 |                         goto cleanup;
>        |                         ^~~~
>
>I think those should just be 'return ret', as it appears that
>fb3c27a69c473 already includes ff89a4d285c82, so I think you can just
>take the right side of the conflict wholesale.

yes, taking the right side is the correct resolution.

thanks
Lucas De Marchi

>
>Cheers,
>Nathan