On Sun, Oct 03, 2021 at 12:32:14AM +0200, Fernando Ramos wrote: > On 21/10/02 09:13AM, Fernando Ramos wrote: > > > > Sean, could you revert the whole patch series? I'll have a deeper look into the > > patch set and come up with a v3 where all these issues will be addressed. > > > > Hi Sean, > > I now understand the nature of the issue that caused the problem with i915 and > have proceed to remove the global context structure (which revealed a similar > issue in the amdgpu driver). > > I have prepared a V3 version of the patch set where these issues should > hopefully be fixed for both the i915 and amdgpu drivers. > > In order to prevent causing more disruption, could you tell me what the proper > way to proceed would be? In particular: > > 1. Is there any place where I can push my changes so that they are tested > on a i915 machine? (Some type of automated pool) cc:intel-gfx, which it looks like you did, _but_ your patches did did not even apply against drm-tip so our CI rejected it. There was a reply to the patches from CI indicating that. And that is one reason I probably just ignored the whole thing. If it doesn't even apply/build it's not worth my time to read. > > 2. I can test the amdgpu driver on my machine but, what about all the other > architectures? What is the standard procedure? Should I simply publish V3 > and wait for feedback from the different vendors? (I would hate to cause a > simular situation again) > > 3. Should I post V3 on top of drm-next or drm-misc-next? The normal rule is: always work on drm-tip. That is what gets tested by our CI as well. Yes, it does mean a bit of extra hurdles during development since drm-tip is a rebasing tree, but there are tools like dim retip to help out here. As for where to merge them. I would generally recommed against merging i915 patches through drm-misc unless there is a very compelling reason to do so. i915 is a fast moving target and if there are significant changes coming in via drm-misc they usually will cause conflicts for people during drm-tip rebuild. Also I would expect to see an ack requested from i915 maintainers for merging anything significant via drm-misc, which I don't think happened in this case. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel
