On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 12:16:50PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 13:03:48 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_driver.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > 4fc0cee83590 ("drivers: remove get_task_comm() and print task comm directly")
I don't believe this patch was acked by us, next time it would be good to get
different patches for different drivers with the proper acks for visibility on
these kind of conflicts.
But if the conflicts are easy to handle right now, let it be...
> >
> > from the mm-nonmm-unstable branch of the mm tree and commit:
> >
> > f5d38d4fa884 ("drm/i915/display: convert intel_display_driver.[ch] to struct intel_display")
> >
> > 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/display/intel_display_driver.c
> > index 62596424a9aa,497b4a1f045f..000000000000
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_driver.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_driver.c
> > @@@ -389,8 -397,9 +397,8 @@@ void intel_display_driver_resume_access
> > * Returns %true if the current thread has display HW access, %false
> > * otherwise.
> > */
> > - bool intel_display_driver_check_access(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
> > + bool intel_display_driver_check_access(struct intel_display *display)
> > {
> > - char comm[TASK_COMM_LEN];
> > char current_task[TASK_COMM_LEN + 16];
> > char allowed_task[TASK_COMM_LEN + 16] = "none";
> >
> > @@@ -399,14 -408,15 +407,14 @@@
> > return true;
> >
> > snprintf(current_task, sizeof(current_task), "%s[%d]",
> > - get_task_comm(comm, current),
> > - task_pid_vnr(current));
> > + current->comm, task_pid_vnr(current));
> >
> > - if (i915->display.access.allowed_task)
> > + if (display->access.allowed_task)
> > snprintf(allowed_task, sizeof(allowed_task), "%s[%d]",
> > - i915->display.access.allowed_task->comm,
> > - task_pid_vnr(i915->display.access.allowed_task));
> > - get_task_comm(comm, display->access.allowed_task),
> > ++ display->access.allowed_task->comm,
> > + task_pid_vnr(display->access.allowed_task));
> >
> > - drm_dbg_kms(&i915->drm,
> > + drm_dbg_kms(display->drm,
> > "Reject display access from task %s (allowed to %s)\n",
> > current_task, allowed_task);
> >
>
> This is now a conflict between the drm tree and the mm-nonmm-unstable
> branch of the mm tree.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
