+ Dave and Daniel + Stephen Quoting Christoph Hellwig (2020-09-26 09:29:59) > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 07:43:49PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 15:58:42 +0200 Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > this series removes alloc_vm_area, which was left over from the big > > > vmalloc interface rework. It is a rather arkane interface, basicaly > > > the equivalent of get_vm_area + actually faulting in all PTEs in > > > the allocated area. It was originally addeds for Xen (which isn't > > > modular to start with), and then grew users in zsmalloc and i915 > > > which seems to mostly qualify as abuses of the interface, especially > > > for i915 as a random driver should not set up PTE bits directly. > > > > > > Note that the i915 patches apply to the drm-tip branch of the drm-tip > > > tree, as that tree has recent conflicting commits in the same area. > > > > Is the drm-tip material in linux-next yet? I'm still seeing a non-trivial > > reject in there at present. > > I assumed it was, but the reject imply that they aren't. Tvrtko, do you > know the details? I think we have a gap that after splitting the drm-intel-next pull requests into two the drm-intel/for-linux-next branch is now missing material from drm-intel/drm-intel-gt-next. I think a simple course of action might be to start including drm-intel-gt-next in linux-next, which would mean that we should update DIM tooling to add extra branch "drm-intel/gt-for-linux-next" or so. Which specific patches are missing in this case? Regards, Joonas
