Hi all,
On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 12:16:50 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 13:03:48 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_driver.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > 4fc0cee83590 ("drivers: remove get_task_comm() and print task comm directly")
> >
> > from the mm-nonmm-unstable branch of the mm tree and commit:
> >
> > f5d38d4fa884 ("drm/i915/display: convert intel_display_driver.[ch] to struct intel_display")
> >
> > from the drm-intel 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.
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Stephen Rothwell
> >
> > diff --cc drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_driver.c
> > index 62596424a9aa,497b4a1f045f..000000000000
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_driver.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_driver.c
> > @@@ -389,8 -397,9 +397,8 @@@ void intel_display_driver_resume_access
> > * Returns %true if the current thread has display HW access, %false
> > * otherwise.
> > */
> > - bool intel_display_driver_check_access(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
> > + bool intel_display_driver_check_access(struct intel_display *display)
> > {
> > - char comm[TASK_COMM_LEN];
> > char current_task[TASK_COMM_LEN + 16];
> > char allowed_task[TASK_COMM_LEN + 16] = "none";
> >
> > @@@ -399,14 -408,15 +407,14 @@@
> > return true;
> >
> > snprintf(current_task, sizeof(current_task), "%s[%d]",
> > - get_task_comm(comm, current),
> > - task_pid_vnr(current));
> > + current->comm, task_pid_vnr(current));
> >
> > - if (i915->display.access.allowed_task)
> > + if (display->access.allowed_task)
> > snprintf(allowed_task, sizeof(allowed_task), "%s[%d]",
> > - i915->display.access.allowed_task->comm,
> > - task_pid_vnr(i915->display.access.allowed_task));
> > - get_task_comm(comm, display->access.allowed_task),
> > ++ display->access.allowed_task->comm,
> > + task_pid_vnr(display->access.allowed_task));
> >
> > - drm_dbg_kms(&i915->drm,
> > + drm_dbg_kms(display->drm,
> > "Reject display access from task %s (allowed to %s)\n",
> > current_task, allowed_task);
> >
>
> This is now a conflict between the drm tree and the mm-nonmm-unstable
> branch of the mm tree.
And now a conflict between Linus' tree and the mm-nonmm-stable tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Attachment:
pgp23P9r0dNWE.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
