On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 1:30 PM Vasily Khoruzhick <anarsoul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 2:18 PM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> > Today's linux-next merge of the drm tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > drivers/gpu/drm/lima/lima_gem.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > 21670bd78a25001cf8e ("drm/lima: fix lima_gem_wait() return value")
> >
> > from the drm-misc-fixes tree and commit:
> >
> > 52791eeec1d9f4a7e7f ("dma-buf: rename reservation_object to dma_resv")
> >
> > from the drm 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.
>
> Fix looks correct to me. Sorry for not testing my patch with
> linux-next, I'll make sure it at least compiles next time.
This is merge conflict, not compile fail, because linux-next and drm-misc-fixes
are based on different code base, so drm-misc-fixes do not contain latest drm
commits.
This conflict solve change is also OK for me.
Thanks,
Qiang
>
> > diff --cc drivers/gpu/drm/lima/lima_gem.c
> > index b609dc030d6ca,ff3d9acc24fcf..0000000000000
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/lima/lima_gem.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/lima/lima_gem.c
> > @@@ -341,8 -341,8 +341,8 @@@ int lima_gem_wait(struct drm_file *file
> >
> > timeout = drm_timeout_abs_to_jiffies(timeout_ns);
> >
> > - ret = drm_gem_reservation_object_wait(file, handle, write, timeout);
> > + ret = drm_gem_dma_resv_wait(file, handle, write, timeout);
> > - if (ret == 0)
> > + if (ret == -ETIME)
> > ret = timeout ? -ETIMEDOUT : -EBUSY;
> >
> > return ret;
