Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_shrinker.c
between commit:
2850748ef876 ("drm/i915: Pull i915_vma_pin under the vm->mutex")
from the drm tree and commit:
5facae4f3549 ("locking/lockdep: Remove unused @nested argument from lock_release()")
from the tip 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/gem/i915_gem_shrinker.c
index fd3ce6da8497,1a51b3598d63..000000000000
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_shrinker.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_shrinker.c
@@@ -436,9 -497,22 +436,9 @@@ void i915_gem_shrinker_taints_mutex(str
fs_reclaim_acquire(GFP_KERNEL);
- /*
- * As we invariably rely on the struct_mutex within the shrinker,
- * but have a complicated recursion dance, taint all the mutexes used
- * within the shrinker with the struct_mutex. For completeness, we
- * taint with all subclass of struct_mutex, even though we should
- * only need tainting by I915_MM_NORMAL to catch possible ABBA
- * deadlocks from using struct_mutex inside @mutex.
- */
- mutex_acquire(&i915->drm.struct_mutex.dep_map,
- I915_MM_SHRINKER, 0, _RET_IP_);
-
mutex_acquire(&mutex->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
- mutex_release(&mutex->dep_map, 0, _RET_IP_);
+ mutex_release(&mutex->dep_map, _RET_IP_);
- mutex_release(&i915->drm.struct_mutex.dep_map, _RET_IP_);
-
fs_reclaim_release(GFP_KERNEL);
if (unlock)
Attachment:
pgpdX4PlSJBtN.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
