On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 01:37:17PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 15:25:24 +0200 > Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, 03 Jan 2017, Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 2017.01.02 21:48:57 -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > > >> > Alex, I liked to have kvmgt related mdev interface change be merged through > > >> > vfio tree, but wasn't awared one of Jike's fix had conflict. Could you apply > > >> > below fix in your tree? I think in general for possible interface change in > > >> > future we still need a pull request for i915 to resolve dependence earlier. > > >> > > >> Hi Zhenyu, > > >> > > >> Hopefully this abstraction will help to isolate vendor drivers from > > >> mdev API changes in the future. I can certainly roll this patch into > > >> the original to maintain bisectability. I want to get these changes in > > >> for rc3, will a pull request for the i915 changes be sent this week? > > > > > > Send to Jani who is managing i915 fixes pull. > > > > Send what to me? I've pushed fixes to drm-intel-fixes today for testing, > > and expect to send a pull request to Dave early Thursday. If there's a > > conflict, it can usually be solved while merging, like Stephen has done. > > Unless there's some preference otherwise, I was only asking if the i915 > changes were queued for rc3 such that I could trail behind them and > fixup the mdev API change without relying on it getting caught in the > merge. If we're happy to do it at merge time, I won't worry about it. Dave Airlie is still on vacation, so I expect drm fixes pull request to get a bit delayed. I think adding a warning when sending each respective pull to Linus about this is the best approach, to avoid stalling mdev fixes. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
