On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 03:11:31PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 10:27:29 -0800 John Harrison <john.c.harrison@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 1/31/2023 04:44, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 01:03:05PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > >> > > >> Today's linux-next merge of the usb tree got a conflict in: > > >> > > >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c > > >> > > >> between commit: > > >> > > >> 5bc4b43d5c6c ("drm/i915: Fix up locking around dumping requests lists") > > >> > > >> from the drm-intel-fixes tree and commit: > > >> > > >> 4d70c74659d9 ("i915: Move list_count() to list.h as list_count_nodes() for broader use") > > >> > > >> from the usb tree. > > >> > > >> I fixed it up (the former removed the code changed by the latter) > > > Hmm... Currently I see that 20230127002842.3169194-4-John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx > > > moves the code to the drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c. > > > > > > Is there any new series beside the above mentioned that touches that file and > > > actually _removes_ that code? > > As long as the removal is limited to list_count/list_count_nodes, > > that's fine. I only moved it from one file to another because the one > > and only function that was using it was being moved to the other > > file. If someone else has found a use for the same and wants to move > > it to a more common place then great. I assume there was no conflict > > happening in the i915 specific code. > > I have added this fix up patch to linux-next today (more or less - this > is a hand hacked version, but you get the idea): > > From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2023 13:13:01 +1100 > Subject: [PATCH] i915: fix up for "drm/i915: Fix up locking around dumping requests lists" > > interacting with "i915: Move list_count() to list.h as list_count_nodes() for broader use" > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > .../gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c | 15 +------------ > 1 file changed, 2 insertion(+), 13 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c > index 3c573d41d404..e919d41a48d9 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c > @@ -4150,17 +4150,6 @@ void intel_execlists_show_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine, > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sched_engine->lock, flags); > } > > -static unsigned long list_count(struct list_head *list) > -{ > - struct list_head *pos; > - unsigned long count = 0; > - > - list_for_each(pos, list) > - count++; > - > - return count; > -} > - > void intel_execlists_dump_active_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine, > struct i915_request *hung_rq, > struct drm_printer *m) > @@ -4172,7 +4161,7 @@ void intel_execlists_dump_active_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine, > intel_engine_dump_active_requests(&engine->sched_engine->requests, hung_rq, m); > > - drm_printf(m, "\tOn hold?: %lu\n", > - list_count(&engine->sched_engine->hold)); > + drm_printf(m, "\tOn hold?: %zu\n", > + list_count_nodes(&engine->sched_engine->hold)); something awkward here. The resolution on linux-next should align with the resolution on drm-tip where we have the list_count still there as we preferred the version on drm-intel-gt-next as the resolution of the conflict instead of the fixes one. > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&engine->sched_engine->lock, flags); > } > -- > 2.35.1 > > -- > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell