On Sat, 20 Feb 2016, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > We have a duplicated patch on drm-intel-nightly > > commits d7006964d and cc1de6e80 [I snipped the extra trailing 'q' off the 2nd commit id.] > causing: > > drivers/gpu/drm//amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ttm.c:818:6: error: redefinition of > ‘amdgpu_ttm_tt_affect_userptr’ > bool amdgpu_ttm_tt_affect_userptr(struct ttm_tt *ttm, unsigned long start, > ^ > drivers/gpu/drm//amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ttm.c:799:6: note: previous > definition of ‘amdgpu_ttm_tt_affect_userptr’ was here > bool amdgpu_ttm_tt_affect_userptr(struct ttm_tt *ttm, unsigned long start, > > One cc'ed stable and other didn't. So I'm not sure how this > duplication happened or in which tree, so I'm pinging you all that > know better how to identify and solve this issue. There's nothing unusual here. The patch was apparently first applied to drm-next, and then cherry-picked to drm-fixes and this one is now in Linus' master. We do this all the time in i915. The build fail is, or rather was, in our integration tree. I thought I had screwed up the conflict resolution [1], but turns out the fail was in a silent conflict. The function got added twice. It's now fixed in our tree. Heads up Dave, I presume this will happen when drm-next gets merged to Linus' tree in the next merge window. (Or perhaps in linux-next already.) BR, Jani. [1] http://mid.gmane.org/87ziuwvj0o.fsf@xxxxxxxxx -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
