Hi all,
After merging the tip tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
failed like this:
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c: In function 'intel_gt_resume':
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c:183:54: error: macro "mutex_release" passed 3 arguments, but takes just 2
183 | mutex_release(&ce->pin_mutex.dep_map, 0, _THIS_IP_);
| ^
In file included from include/linux/spinlock_types.h:18,
from include/linux/spinlock.h:83,
from include/linux/mmzone.h:8,
from include/linux/gfp.h:6,
from include/linux/slab.h:15,
from include/linux/io-mapping.h:10,
from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h:36,
from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c:7:
include/linux/lockdep.h:605: note: macro "mutex_release" defined here
605 | #define mutex_release(l, i) lock_release(l, i)
|
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c: In function '__context_pin_release':
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c:245:51: error: macro "mutex_release" passed 3 arguments, but takes just 2
245 | mutex_release(&ce->pin_mutex.dep_map, 0, _RET_IP_);
| ^
In file included from include/linux/hardirq.h:6,
from include/linux/interrupt.h:11,
from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c:134:
include/linux/lockdep.h:605: note: macro "mutex_release" defined here
605 | #define mutex_release(l, i) lock_release(l, i)
|
Caused by commit
5facae4f3549 ("locking/lockdep: Remove unused @nested argument from lock_release()")
interacting with commits
dffa8feb3084 ("drm/i915/perf: Assert locking for i915_init_oa_perf_state()")
fcde8c7eea60 ("drm/i915/selftests: Exercise potential false lite-restore")
b1e3177bd1d8 ("drm/i915: Coordinate i915_active with its own mutex")
from the drm tree.
I added the following merge fix patch for today:
From: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 13:08:43 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] drm/i915: update for mutex_release API change
Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.c | 2 +-
3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c
index b52e2ba3d092..d195e05a701f 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c
@@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ int intel_gt_resume(struct intel_gt *gt)
GEM_BUG_ON(!intel_context_is_pinned(ce));
mutex_acquire(&ce->pin_mutex.dep_map, 0, 0, _THIS_IP_);
ce->ops->reset(ce);
- mutex_release(&ce->pin_mutex.dep_map, 0, _THIS_IP_);
+ mutex_release(&ce->pin_mutex.dep_map, _THIS_IP_);
}
engine->serial++; /* kernel context lost */
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c
index a2155d6bcdd2..aa61b0101bf8 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c
@@ -242,7 +242,7 @@ static void __context_pin_acquire(struct intel_context *ce)
static void __context_pin_release(struct intel_context *ce)
{
- mutex_release(&ce->pin_mutex.dep_map, 0, _RET_IP_);
+ mutex_release(&ce->pin_mutex.dep_map, _RET_IP_);
}
static void mark_eio(struct i915_request *rq)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.c
index aa37c07004b9..a47387174434 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.c
@@ -385,7 +385,7 @@ void i915_active_set_exclusive(struct i915_active *ref, struct dma_fence *f)
mutex_acquire(&ref->mutex.dep_map, 0, 0, _THIS_IP_);
if (!__i915_active_fence_set(&ref->excl, f))
atomic_inc(&ref->count);
- mutex_release(&ref->mutex.dep_map, 0, _THIS_IP_);
+ mutex_release(&ref->mutex.dep_map, _THIS_IP_);
}
bool i915_active_acquire_if_busy(struct i915_active *ref)
--
2.23.0
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
* Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the tip tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
> failed like this:
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c: In function 'intel_gt_resume':
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c:183:54: error: macro "mutex_release" passed 3 arguments, but takes just 2
> 183 | mutex_release(&ce->pin_mutex.dep_map, 0, _THIS_IP_);
> | ^
> In file included from include/linux/spinlock_types.h:18,
> from include/linux/spinlock.h:83,
> from include/linux/mmzone.h:8,
> from include/linux/gfp.h:6,
> from include/linux/slab.h:15,
> from include/linux/io-mapping.h:10,
> from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h:36,
> from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c:7:
> include/linux/lockdep.h:605: note: macro "mutex_release" defined here
> 605 | #define mutex_release(l, i) lock_release(l, i)
> |
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c: In function '__context_pin_release':
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c:245:51: error: macro "mutex_release" passed 3 arguments, but takes just 2
> 245 | mutex_release(&ce->pin_mutex.dep_map, 0, _RET_IP_);
> | ^
> In file included from include/linux/hardirq.h:6,
> from include/linux/interrupt.h:11,
> from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c:134:
> include/linux/lockdep.h:605: note: macro "mutex_release" defined here
> 605 | #define mutex_release(l, i) lock_release(l, i)
> |
>
> Caused by commit
>
> 5facae4f3549 ("locking/lockdep: Remove unused @nested argument from lock_release()")
>
> interacting with commits
>
> dffa8feb3084 ("drm/i915/perf: Assert locking for i915_init_oa_perf_state()")
> fcde8c7eea60 ("drm/i915/selftests: Exercise potential false lite-restore")
> b1e3177bd1d8 ("drm/i915: Coordinate i915_active with its own mutex")
>
> from the drm tree.
>
> I added the following merge fix patch for today:
>
> From: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 13:08:43 +1100
> Subject: [PATCH] drm/i915: update for mutex_release API change
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c | 2 +-
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c | 2 +-
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.c | 2 +-
> 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
I suspect -next will have to carry this semantic merge conflict
resolution until the DRM tree is merged upstream.
Thanks,
Ingo
Hi Ingo,
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 10:02:07 +0200 Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I suspect -next will have to carry this semantic merge conflict
> resolution until the DRM tree is merged upstream.
Yep, its not a real problem, I get a few like this every cycle.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:23:21PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 10:02:07 +0200 Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I suspect -next will have to carry this semantic merge conflict
> > resolution until the DRM tree is merged upstream.
>
> Yep, its not a real problem, I get a few like this every cycle.
Yeah totally within expectations when I acked that cleanup patch. We'll
probably have a few more lockdep annotation patches/changes that will
conflict in drm.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
Hi all,
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 13:14:48 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I added the following merge fix patch for today:
>
This patch is now just:
From: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 13:08:43 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] drm/i915: update for mutex_release API change
Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.c
index aa37c07004b9..a47387174434 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.c
@@ -385,7 +385,7 @@ void i915_active_set_exclusive(struct i915_active *ref, struct dma_fence *f)
mutex_acquire(&ref->mutex.dep_map, 0, 0, _THIS_IP_);
if (!__i915_active_fence_set(&ref->excl, f))
atomic_inc(&ref->count);
- mutex_release(&ref->mutex.dep_map, 0, _THIS_IP_);
+ mutex_release(&ref->mutex.dep_map, _THIS_IP_);
}
bool i915_active_acquire_if_busy(struct i915_active *ref)
--
2.23.0
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Hi all,
On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 13:53:40 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 13:14:48 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I added the following merge fix patch for today:
> >
>
> This patch is now just:
>
> From: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 13:08:43 +1100
> Subject: [PATCH] drm/i915: update for mutex_release API change
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.c
> index aa37c07004b9..a47387174434 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.c
> @@ -385,7 +385,7 @@ void i915_active_set_exclusive(struct i915_active *ref, struct dma_fence *f)
> mutex_acquire(&ref->mutex.dep_map, 0, 0, _THIS_IP_);
> if (!__i915_active_fence_set(&ref->excl, f))
> atomic_inc(&ref->count);
> - mutex_release(&ref->mutex.dep_map, 0, _THIS_IP_);
> + mutex_release(&ref->mutex.dep_map, _THIS_IP_);
> }
>
> bool i915_active_acquire_if_busy(struct i915_active *ref)
> --
> 2.23.0
This merge fix patch is now needed for the merge between the drm tree
and Linus' tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell