On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 04:23:40PM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:37:44PM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Jani Nikula > >> <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Thu, 25 Jul 2013, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Jani Nikula > >> >>> <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >>>> On Thu, 25 Jul 2013, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 7:12 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >>>>>> Hi all, > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Changes since 20130724: > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Removed tree: > >> >>>>>> arm-dt (at maintainer's request) > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> The wireless-next tree lost its build failure and gained a conflict > >> >>>>>> against Linus' tree. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> The tty tree lost its build failure. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> The staging tree gained a build failure for which I disabled a driver. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> [ CCing drm and drm-intel folks ] > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> With today's next-20130725 I see the following: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Use of dev_priv->gt_lock in I915_WRITE through > >> >>>> intel_disable_gt_powersave before spin lock init, caused by > >> >>>> > >> >>>> commit 181d1b9e31c668259d3798c521672afb8edd355c > >> >>>> Author: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> > >> >>>> Date: Sun Jul 21 13:16:24 2013 +0200 > >> >>>> > >> >>>> drm/i915: fix up gt init sequence fallout > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Ah, cool. > >> >>> > >> >>> I assumed/tested "drm/i915: fix the racy object accounting", but this > >> >>> does not fix it. > >> >>> Will try with yours. > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> Sorry, Jani. > >> >> > >> >> next-20130725 ships the patch you pointed, too. > >> > > >> > Confused. I meant that the above mentioned commit "drm/i915: fix up gt > >> > init sequence fallout" causes the problem. The patch I included in my > >> > mail should fix it. Could you try that please? > >> > > >> > >> [ Note2myself: Do not read half of the message... ] > >> > >> The bad... Your patch needed some refresh against next-20130725 (guess > >> it's against drm-intel-nightly). > >> > >> The good... YES, your patch fixes the issue for me! > >> > >> The ugly... /me. > >> > >> Feel free to add my: > >> > >> Tested-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Thanks for the quick fix! > > > > Thanks a lot for the report, since this should be something I should have > > caught. And for added insult the offending patch is already in Linus' tree > > :( Patch merged to -fixes. > > Hmmm, don't you merge -fixes into -nightly? I do, but it seems to only blow up with spinlock debugging enabling I think. Our QA should run full debug buils in the -nightly testing, but apparently they didn't catch this. I'm looking into what went wrong here and fix up the process. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
