Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the usb tree got a conflict in:
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c
between commit:
5bc4b43d5c6c ("drm/i915: Fix up locking around dumping requests lists")
from the drm-intel-fixes tree and commit:
4d70c74659d9 ("i915: Move list_count() to list.h as list_count_nodes() for broader use")
from the usb tree.
I fixed it up (the former removed the code changed by 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 Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 01:03:05PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the usb tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 5bc4b43d5c6c ("drm/i915: Fix up locking around dumping requests lists")
>
> from the drm-intel-fixes tree and commit:
>
> 4d70c74659d9 ("i915: Move list_count() to list.h as list_count_nodes() for broader use")
>
> from the usb tree.
>
> I fixed it up (the former removed the code changed by 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.
Thanks for the merge resolution.
greg k-h
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 01:03:05PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the usb tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 5bc4b43d5c6c ("drm/i915: Fix up locking around dumping requests lists")
>
> from the drm-intel-fixes tree and commit:
>
> 4d70c74659d9 ("i915: Move list_count() to list.h as list_count_nodes() for broader use")
>
> from the usb tree.
>
> I fixed it up (the former removed the code changed by the latter)
Hmm... Currently I see that [email protected]
moves the code to the drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c.
Is there any new series beside the above mentioned that touches that file and
actually _removes_ that code?
> 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.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On 1/31/2023 04:44, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 01:03:05PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the usb tree got a conflict in:
>>
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> 5bc4b43d5c6c ("drm/i915: Fix up locking around dumping requests lists")
>>
>> from the drm-intel-fixes tree and commit:
>>
>> 4d70c74659d9 ("i915: Move list_count() to list.h as list_count_nodes() for broader use")
>>
>> from the usb tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (the former removed the code changed by the latter)
> Hmm... Currently I see that [email protected]
> moves the code to the drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c.
>
> Is there any new series beside the above mentioned that touches that file and
> actually _removes_ that code?
As long as the removal is limited to list_count/list_count_nodes, that's
fine. I only moved it from one file to another because the one and only
function that was using it was being moved to the other file. If someone
else has found a use for the same and wants to move it to a more common
place then great. I assume there was no conflict happening in the i915
specific code.
John.
>
>> 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.
Hi all,
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 10:27:29 -0800 John Harrison <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 1/31/2023 04:44, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 01:03:05PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >>
> >> Today's linux-next merge of the usb tree got a conflict in:
> >>
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c
> >>
> >> between commit:
> >>
> >> 5bc4b43d5c6c ("drm/i915: Fix up locking around dumping requests lists")
> >>
> >> from the drm-intel-fixes tree and commit:
> >>
> >> 4d70c74659d9 ("i915: Move list_count() to list.h as list_count_nodes() for broader use")
> >>
> >> from the usb tree.
> >>
> >> I fixed it up (the former removed the code changed by the latter)
> > Hmm... Currently I see that [email protected]
> > moves the code to the drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c.
> >
> > Is there any new series beside the above mentioned that touches that file and
> > actually _removes_ that code?
> As long as the removal is limited to list_count/list_count_nodes,
> that's fine. I only moved it from one file to another because the one
> and only function that was using it was being moved to the other
> file. If someone else has found a use for the same and wants to move
> it to a more common place then great. I assume there was no conflict
> happening in the i915 specific code.
I have added this fix up patch to linux-next today (more or less - this
is a hand hacked version, but you get the idea):
From: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2023 13:13:01 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] i915: fix up for "drm/i915: Fix up locking around dumping requests lists"
interacting with "i915: Move list_count() to list.h as list_count_nodes() for broader use"
Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
---
.../gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c | 15 +------------
1 file changed, 2 insertion(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
index 3c573d41d404..e919d41a48d9 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
@@ -4150,17 +4150,6 @@ void intel_execlists_show_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sched_engine->lock, flags);
}
-static unsigned long list_count(struct list_head *list)
-{
- struct list_head *pos;
- unsigned long count = 0;
-
- list_for_each(pos, list)
- count++;
-
- return count;
-}
-
void intel_execlists_dump_active_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
struct i915_request *hung_rq,
struct drm_printer *m)
@@ -4172,7 +4161,7 @@ void intel_execlists_dump_active_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
intel_engine_dump_active_requests(&engine->sched_engine->requests, hung_rq, m);
- drm_printf(m, "\tOn hold?: %lu\n",
- list_count(&engine->sched_engine->hold));
+ drm_printf(m, "\tOn hold?: %zu\n",
+ list_count_nodes(&engine->sched_engine->hold));
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&engine->sched_engine->lock, flags);
}
--
2.35.1
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 03:11:31PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 10:27:29 -0800 John Harrison <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On 1/31/2023 04:44, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 01:03:05PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Today's linux-next merge of the usb tree got a conflict in:
> > >>
> > >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c
> > >>
> > >> between commit:
> > >>
> > >> 5bc4b43d5c6c ("drm/i915: Fix up locking around dumping requests lists")
> > >>
> > >> from the drm-intel-fixes tree and commit:
> > >>
> > >> 4d70c74659d9 ("i915: Move list_count() to list.h as list_count_nodes() for broader use")
> > >>
> > >> from the usb tree.
> > >>
> > >> I fixed it up (the former removed the code changed by the latter)
> > > Hmm... Currently I see that [email protected]
> > > moves the code to the drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c.
> > >
> > > Is there any new series beside the above mentioned that touches that file and
> > > actually _removes_ that code?
> > As long as the removal is limited to list_count/list_count_nodes,
> > that's fine. I only moved it from one file to another because the one
> > and only function that was using it was being moved to the other
> > file. If someone else has found a use for the same and wants to move
> > it to a more common place then great. I assume there was no conflict
> > happening in the i915 specific code.
>
> I have added this fix up patch to linux-next today (more or less - this
> is a hand hacked version, but you get the idea):
>
> From: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
> Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2023 13:13:01 +1100
> Subject: [PATCH] i915: fix up for "drm/i915: Fix up locking around dumping requests lists"
>
> interacting with "i915: Move list_count() to list.h as list_count_nodes() for broader use"
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
> ---
> .../gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c | 15 +------------
> 1 file changed, 2 insertion(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
> index 3c573d41d404..e919d41a48d9 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
> @@ -4150,17 +4150,6 @@ void intel_execlists_show_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sched_engine->lock, flags);
> }
>
> -static unsigned long list_count(struct list_head *list)
> -{
> - struct list_head *pos;
> - unsigned long count = 0;
> -
> - list_for_each(pos, list)
> - count++;
> -
> - return count;
> -}
> -
> void intel_execlists_dump_active_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
> struct i915_request *hung_rq,
> struct drm_printer *m)
> @@ -4172,7 +4161,7 @@ void intel_execlists_dump_active_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
> intel_engine_dump_active_requests(&engine->sched_engine->requests, hung_rq, m);
>
> - drm_printf(m, "\tOn hold?: %lu\n",
> - list_count(&engine->sched_engine->hold));
> + drm_printf(m, "\tOn hold?: %zu\n",
> + list_count_nodes(&engine->sched_engine->hold));
something awkward here.
The resolution on linux-next should align with the resolution on drm-tip
where we have the list_count still there as we preferred the version
on drm-intel-gt-next as the resolution of the conflict instead of the
fixes one.
>
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&engine->sched_engine->lock, flags);
> }
> --
> 2.35.1
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
On 2/1/2023 07:31, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 03:11:31PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 10:27:29 -0800 John Harrison <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 1/31/2023 04:44, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 01:03:05PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>>> Today's linux-next merge of the usb tree got a conflict in:
>>>>>
>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c
>>>>>
>>>>> between commit:
>>>>>
>>>>> 5bc4b43d5c6c ("drm/i915: Fix up locking around dumping requests lists")
>>>>>
>>>>> from the drm-intel-fixes tree and commit:
>>>>>
>>>>> 4d70c74659d9 ("i915: Move list_count() to list.h as list_count_nodes() for broader use")
>>>>>
>>>>> from the usb tree.
>>>>>
>>>>> I fixed it up (the former removed the code changed by the latter)
>>>> Hmm... Currently I see that [email protected]
>>>> moves the code to the drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c.
>>>>
>>>> Is there any new series beside the above mentioned that touches that file and
>>>> actually _removes_ that code?
>>> As long as the removal is limited to list_count/list_count_nodes,
>>> that's fine. I only moved it from one file to another because the one
>>> and only function that was using it was being moved to the other
>>> file. If someone else has found a use for the same and wants to move
>>> it to a more common place then great. I assume there was no conflict
>>> happening in the i915 specific code.
>> I have added this fix up patch to linux-next today (more or less - this
>> is a hand hacked version, but you get the idea):
>>
>> From: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
>> Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2023 13:13:01 +1100
>> Subject: [PATCH] i915: fix up for "drm/i915: Fix up locking around dumping requests lists"
>>
>> interacting with "i915: Move list_count() to list.h as list_count_nodes() for broader use"
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> .../gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c | 15 +------------
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertion(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
>> index 3c573d41d404..e919d41a48d9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
>> @@ -4150,17 +4150,6 @@ void intel_execlists_show_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sched_engine->lock, flags);
>> }
>>
>> -static unsigned long list_count(struct list_head *list)
>> -{
>> - struct list_head *pos;
>> - unsigned long count = 0;
>> -
>> - list_for_each(pos, list)
>> - count++;
>> -
>> - return count;
>> -}
>> -
>> void intel_execlists_dump_active_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
>> struct i915_request *hung_rq,
>> struct drm_printer *m)
>> @@ -4172,7 +4161,7 @@ void intel_execlists_dump_active_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
>> intel_engine_dump_active_requests(&engine->sched_engine->requests, hung_rq, m);
>>
>> - drm_printf(m, "\tOn hold?: %lu\n",
>> - list_count(&engine->sched_engine->hold));
>> + drm_printf(m, "\tOn hold?: %zu\n",
>> + list_count_nodes(&engine->sched_engine->hold));
> something awkward here.
> The resolution on linux-next should align with the resolution on drm-tip
> where we have the list_count still there as we preferred the version
> on drm-intel-gt-next as the resolution of the conflict instead of the
> fixes one.
Not following why you want to keep list_count as a local function in the
i915 driver? Surely the correct fix is to move it to the common header
and share the code? In which case, the correct name is
list_count_nodes() as that is what got merged to the common header.
John.
>
>>
>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&engine->sched_engine->lock, flags);
>> }
>> --
>> 2.35.1
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Stephen Rothwell
>
On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 10:37:06AM -0800, John Harrison wrote:
> On 2/1/2023 07:31, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 03:11:31PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 10:27:29 -0800 John Harrison <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On 1/31/2023 04:44, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 01:03:05PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the usb tree got a conflict in:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c
> > > > > >
> > > > > > between commit:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 5bc4b43d5c6c ("drm/i915: Fix up locking around dumping requests lists")
> > > > > >
> > > > > > from the drm-intel-fixes tree and commit:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4d70c74659d9 ("i915: Move list_count() to list.h as list_count_nodes() for broader use")
> > > > > >
> > > > > > from the usb tree.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I fixed it up (the former removed the code changed by the latter)
> > > > > Hmm... Currently I see that [email protected]
> > > > > moves the code to the drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there any new series beside the above mentioned that touches that file and
> > > > > actually _removes_ that code?
> > > > As long as the removal is limited to list_count/list_count_nodes,
> > > > that's fine. I only moved it from one file to another because the one
> > > > and only function that was using it was being moved to the other
> > > > file. If someone else has found a use for the same and wants to move
> > > > it to a more common place then great. I assume there was no conflict
> > > > happening in the i915 specific code.
> > > I have added this fix up patch to linux-next today (more or less - this
> > > is a hand hacked version, but you get the idea):
> > >
> > > From: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
> > > Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2023 13:13:01 +1100
> > > Subject: [PATCH] i915: fix up for "drm/i915: Fix up locking around dumping requests lists"
> > >
> > > interacting with "i915: Move list_count() to list.h as list_count_nodes() for broader use"
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > .../gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c | 15 +------------
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertion(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
> > > index 3c573d41d404..e919d41a48d9 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
> > > @@ -4150,17 +4150,6 @@ void intel_execlists_show_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
> > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sched_engine->lock, flags);
> > > }
> > > -static unsigned long list_count(struct list_head *list)
> > > -{
> > > - struct list_head *pos;
> > > - unsigned long count = 0;
> > > -
> > > - list_for_each(pos, list)
> > > - count++;
> > > -
> > > - return count;
> > > -}
> > > -
> > > void intel_execlists_dump_active_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
> > > struct i915_request *hung_rq,
> > > struct drm_printer *m)
> > > @@ -4172,7 +4161,7 @@ void intel_execlists_dump_active_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
> > > intel_engine_dump_active_requests(&engine->sched_engine->requests, hung_rq, m);
> > > - drm_printf(m, "\tOn hold?: %lu\n",
> > > - list_count(&engine->sched_engine->hold));
> > > + drm_printf(m, "\tOn hold?: %zu\n",
> > > + list_count_nodes(&engine->sched_engine->hold));
> > something awkward here.
> > The resolution on linux-next should align with the resolution on drm-tip
> > where we have the list_count still there as we preferred the version
> > on drm-intel-gt-next as the resolution of the conflict instead of the
> > fixes one.
> Not following why you want to keep list_count as a local function in the
> i915 driver? Surely the correct fix is to move it to the common header and
> share the code? In which case, the correct name is list_count_nodes() as
> that is what got merged to the common header.
right. please ignore my previous email and accept my apologies for the
unnecessary noise. I had just read the commit '4d70c74659d9 ("i915: Move
list_count() to list.h as list_count_nodes() for broader use")'
and it now the final resolution makes total sense. And that patch had
been reviewed and acked by us, so everything is good.
I just confused with other conflict that we have with our on gt-next
and -fixes tree but with an easier resolution.
Sorry,
Rodrigo.
>
> John.
>
> >
> > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&engine->sched_engine->lock, flags);
> > > }
> > > --
> > > 2.35.1
> > >
> > > --
> > > Cheers,
> > > Stephen Rothwell
> >
>