Hi all,
On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 13:36:35 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/vgpu.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 04d6067f1f19 ("drm/i915/gvt: Fix unnecessary schedule timer when no vGPU exits")
>
> from the drm-intel-fixes tree and commit:
>
> 12d5861973c7 ("drm/i915/gvt: Make WARN* drm specific where vgpu ptr is available")
>
> from the drm-intel 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/gvt/vgpu.c
> index 345c2aa3b491,abcde8ce1a9a..000000000000
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/vgpu.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/vgpu.c
> @@@ -271,18 -272,12 +272,19 @@@ void intel_gvt_release_vgpu(struct inte
> void intel_gvt_destroy_vgpu(struct intel_vgpu *vgpu)
> {
> struct intel_gvt *gvt = vgpu->gvt;
> + struct drm_i915_private *i915 = gvt->gt->i915;
>
> - WARN(vgpu->active, "vGPU is still active!\n");
> - mutex_lock(&vgpu->vgpu_lock);
> -
> + drm_WARN(&i915->drm, vgpu->active, "vGPU is still active!\n");
>
> + /*
> + * remove idr first so later clean can judge if need to stop
> + * service if no active vgpu.
> + */
> + mutex_lock(&gvt->lock);
> + idr_remove(&gvt->vgpu_idr, vgpu->id);
> + mutex_unlock(&gvt->lock);
> +
> + mutex_lock(&vgpu->vgpu_lock);
> intel_gvt_debugfs_remove_vgpu(vgpu);
> intel_vgpu_clean_sched_policy(vgpu);
> intel_vgpu_clean_submission(vgpu);
This is now a conflict between the drm tree and Linus' tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Attachment:
pgpdu0t1FmG1j.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
