Hi Daniel, On 4/27/22 16:21, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 10:37:55PM +0200, Helge Deller wrote: >> Hello dri-devel & dim users, > > Apologies for late reply, I'm way behind on stuff. > >> I committed this patch to the drm-misc-next branch: >> >> commit d6cd978f7e6b6f6895f8d0c4ce6e5d2c8e979afe >> video: fbdev: fbmem: fix pointer reference to null device field >> >> then I noticed that it was fixed already in another branch which led to this error: >> >> Merging drm-misc/drm-misc-next... dim: >> dim: FAILURE: Could not merge drm-misc/drm-misc-next >> dim: See the section "Resolving Conflicts when Rebuilding drm-tip" >> dim: in the drm-tip.rst documentation for how to handle this situation. >> >> I fixed it by reverting that patch above with this new commit in the drm-misc-next branch: >> >> commit cabfa2bbe617ddf0a0cc4d01f72b584dae4939ad (HEAD -> drm-misc-next, drm-misc/for-linux-next, drm-misc/drm-misc-next) >> Author: Helge Deller <deller@xxxxxx> >> Revert "video: fbdev: fbmem: fix pointer reference to null device field" >> >> My question (as "dim" newbie): >> Was that the right solution? > > The patch wasn't really broken, so revert feels a bit silly. The hint was > to look at the documentation referenced by the error message - the issue > was only in rebuilding the integration tree: > > https://drm.pages.freedesktop.org/maintainer-tools/drm-tip.html#resolving-conflicts-when-rebuilding-drm-tip > > This should cover you even for really rare conflict situations. > >> Is there a possibility to drop those two patches from the drm-misc-next branch before it gets pushed upstream? > > It's a shared tree, mistakes are forever. The only time we did a forced > push ever is when someone managed to push their local pile of hacks or > something, and we're catching those pretty well now with a server-side > test to make sure you're using dim to push. > > It's also no big deal, and next time you get a conflict just resolve it > in drm-tip per the docs and it's all fine. Thanks for the feedback! So, basically I think I did the right thing (although a revert isn't nice). There was no other useful fixup I could have come up with, because the other conflicting patch had the right & better solution already pushed. Helge
