Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the drm-misc tree got a conflict in:
drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c
between commit:
23baf831a32c0 ("mm, treewide: redefine MAX_ORDER sanely")
from the mm-stable tree and commit:
56e51681246e5 ("drm/ttm: revert "Reduce the number of used allocation orders for TTM pages"")
from the drm-misc 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/ttm/ttm_pool.c
index 4db3982057be8,dfce896c4baeb..0000000000000
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c
[Just the version in mm]
On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 01:59:12PM +0100, [email protected] wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the drm-misc tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 23baf831a32c0 ("mm, treewide: redefine MAX_ORDER sanely")
>
> from the mm-stable tree and commit:
>
> 56e51681246e5 ("drm/ttm: revert "Reduce the number of used allocation orders for TTM pages"")
>
> from the drm-misc 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/ttm/ttm_pool.c
> index 4db3982057be8,dfce896c4baeb..0000000000000
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c
>
> [Just the version in mm]
Note there was a ppc compile fail, which is why we pushed the ttm revert.
That /should/ be fixed now, but would be good if you can confirm?
Thanks, Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 09:58:50AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Note there was a ppc compile fail, which is why we pushed the ttm revert.
> That /should/ be fixed now, but would be good if you can confirm?
I don't have any PowerPC toolchains set up - I guess one of the
community builders might have checked?
On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 09:58:50AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Note there was a ppc compile fail, which is why we pushed the ttm revert.
> That /should/ be fixed now, but would be good if you can confirm?
According to Nathan (CCed) there's still issues with the interaction
with the PowerPC tree.
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 06:24:37PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 07:34:44PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 09:58:50AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >
> > > Note there was a ppc compile fail, which is why we pushed the ttm revert.
> > > That /should/ be fixed now, but would be good if you can confirm?
> >
> > According to Nathan (CCed) there's still issues with the interaction
> > with the PowerPC tree.
>
> So this revert was supposed to fix this: 56e51681246e ("drm/ttm: revert
> "Reduce the number of used allocation orders for TTM pages"")
>
> If there's anything left then I need to chase that asap since the merge
> window will open soon.
I think we are talking about two different issues here. My issue is not
a compilation failure, it is an incorrect merge resolution that is
happening in -next because of two independent changes in the drm and
powerpc tree, the thread below should have more information.
https://lore.kernel.org/[email protected]/
I do not think this is something that either tree can solve
independently of each other, -next has to resolve the conflict correctly
(which is what I point out in the message above) and a note of it should
be passed along to Linus so it can be resolved correctly in mainline
when the time comes.
Cheers,
Nathan
On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 07:34:44PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 09:58:50AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> > Note there was a ppc compile fail, which is why we pushed the ttm revert.
> > That /should/ be fixed now, but would be good if you can confirm?
>
> According to Nathan (CCed) there's still issues with the interaction
> with the PowerPC tree.
So this revert was supposed to fix this: 56e51681246e ("drm/ttm: revert
"Reduce the number of used allocation orders for TTM pages"")
If there's anything left then I need to chase that asap since the merge
window will open soon.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 09:30:11AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 06:24:37PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 07:34:44PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 09:58:50AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > >
> > > > Note there was a ppc compile fail, which is why we pushed the ttm revert.
> > > > That /should/ be fixed now, but would be good if you can confirm?
> > >
> > > According to Nathan (CCed) there's still issues with the interaction
> > > with the PowerPC tree.
> >
> > So this revert was supposed to fix this: 56e51681246e ("drm/ttm: revert
> > "Reduce the number of used allocation orders for TTM pages"")
> >
> > If there's anything left then I need to chase that asap since the merge
> > window will open soon.
>
> I think we are talking about two different issues here. My issue is not
> a compilation failure, it is an incorrect merge resolution that is
> happening in -next because of two independent changes in the drm and
> powerpc tree, the thread below should have more information.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/[email protected]/
>
> I do not think this is something that either tree can solve
> independently of each other, -next has to resolve the conflict correctly
> (which is what I point out in the message above) and a note of it should
> be passed along to Linus so it can be resolved correctly in mainline
> when the time comes.
Ah yes that's a different one. I think we have a note about this one
already, but I'll double-check with Dave Airlie.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch