Re: linux-next: manual merge of the usb tree with the drm-intel-fixes tree

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2/1/2023 07:31, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
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.
Not following why you want to keep list_count as a local function in the i915 driver? Surely the correct fix is to move it to the common header and share the code? In which case, the correct name is list_count_nodes() as that is what got merged to the common header.

John.


spin_unlock_irqrestore(&engine->sched_engine->lock, flags);
  }
--
2.35.1

--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux USB Development]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux