Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the iommufd tree got a conflict in:
drivers/iommu/intel/pasid.c
between commit:
c61c255e114c ("iommu/vt-d: Remove unused function")
from the iommu tree and commits:
f35f22cc760e ("iommu/vt-d: Access/Dirty bit support for SS domains")
cbf8b441ea08 ("iommu/vt-d: Add helper to setup pasid nested translation")
from the iommufd tree.
I fixed it up (the latter added a use of the function removed by
the former, so I just used the latter) 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.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 03:34:55PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the iommufd tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/iommu/intel/pasid.c
>
> between commit:
>
> c61c255e114c ("iommu/vt-d: Remove unused function")
>
> from the iommu tree and commits:
>
> f35f22cc760e ("iommu/vt-d: Access/Dirty bit support for SS domains")
> cbf8b441ea08 ("iommu/vt-d: Add helper to setup pasid nested translation")
>
> from the iommufd tree.
>
> I fixed it up (the latter added a use of the function removed by
> the former, so I just used the latter) and can carry the fix as
> necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any
> non trivial
Intel folks, this is not nice :( Why was the first commit done at all
if the nesting series needs this?
Thanks Stephen, it looks good
Jason
On 2023/10/25 20:12, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 03:34:55PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the iommufd tree got a conflict in:
>>
>> drivers/iommu/intel/pasid.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> c61c255e114c ("iommu/vt-d: Remove unused function")
>>
>> from the iommu tree and commits:
>>
>> f35f22cc760e ("iommu/vt-d: Access/Dirty bit support for SS domains")
>> cbf8b441ea08 ("iommu/vt-d: Add helper to setup pasid nested translation")
>>
>> from the iommufd tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (the latter added a use of the function removed by
>> the former, so I just used the latter) and can carry the fix as
>> necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any
>> non trivial
> Intel folks, this is not nice ???? Why was the first commit done at all
> if the nesting series needs this?
It's my fault. My apologies for not realizing that the helper would
still be used by the nesting translation series. I will be more careful
in the future.
Best regards,
baolu
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 08:16:16PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
> On 2023/10/25 20:12, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 03:34:55PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the iommufd tree got a conflict in:
> > >
> > > drivers/iommu/intel/pasid.c
> > >
> > > between commit:
> > >
> > > c61c255e114c ("iommu/vt-d: Remove unused function")
> > >
> > > from the iommu tree and commits:
> > >
> > > f35f22cc760e ("iommu/vt-d: Access/Dirty bit support for SS domains")
> > > cbf8b441ea08 ("iommu/vt-d: Add helper to setup pasid nested translation")
> > >
> > > from the iommufd tree.
> > >
> > > I fixed it up (the latter added a use of the function removed by
> > > the former, so I just used the latter) and can carry the fix as
> > > necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any
> > > non trivial
> > Intel folks, this is not nice ???? Why was the first commit done at all
> > if the nesting series needs this?
>
> It's my fault. My apologies for not realizing that the helper would
> still be used by the nesting translation series. I will be more careful
> in the future.
Can you send a revert of c61c255e114c ASAP to Joerg please?
Jason
On 2023/10/25 20:17, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 08:16:16PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
>> On 2023/10/25 20:12, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 03:34:55PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Today's linux-next merge of the iommufd tree got a conflict in:
>>>>
>>>> drivers/iommu/intel/pasid.c
>>>>
>>>> between commit:
>>>>
>>>> c61c255e114c ("iommu/vt-d: Remove unused function")
>>>>
>>>> from the iommu tree and commits:
>>>>
>>>> f35f22cc760e ("iommu/vt-d: Access/Dirty bit support for SS domains")
>>>> cbf8b441ea08 ("iommu/vt-d: Add helper to setup pasid nested translation")
>>>>
>>>> from the iommufd tree.
>>>>
>>>> I fixed it up (the latter added a use of the function removed by
>>>> the former, so I just used the latter) and can carry the fix as
>>>> necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any
>>>> non trivial
>>> Intel folks, this is not nice ???? Why was the first commit done at all
>>> if the nesting series needs this?
>> It's my fault. My apologies for not realizing that the helper would
>> still be used by the nesting translation series. I will be more careful
>> in the future.
> Can you send a revert of c61c255e114c ASAP to Joerg please?
Sure!
Best regards,
baolu