On Mon, 04 Oct 2021, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 03, 2021 at 12:32:14AM +0200, Fernando Ramos wrote: >> On 21/10/02 09:13AM, Fernando Ramos wrote: >> > >> > Sean, could you revert the whole patch series? I'll have a deeper look into the >> > patch set and come up with a v3 where all these issues will be addressed. >> > >> >> Hi Sean, >> >> I now understand the nature of the issue that caused the problem with i915 and >> have proceed to remove the global context structure (which revealed a similar >> issue in the amdgpu driver). >> >> I have prepared a V3 version of the patch set where these issues should >> hopefully be fixed for both the i915 and amdgpu drivers. >> >> In order to prevent causing more disruption, could you tell me what the proper >> way to proceed would be? In particular: >> >> 1. Is there any place where I can push my changes so that they are tested >> on a i915 machine? (Some type of automated pool) > > cc:intel-gfx, which it looks like you did, _but_ your patches did > did not even apply against drm-tip so our CI rejected it. There was > a reply to the patches from CI indicating that. And that is one > reason I probably just ignored the whole thing. If it doesn't > even apply/build it's not worth my time to read. > >> >> 2. I can test the amdgpu driver on my machine but, what about all the other >> architectures? What is the standard procedure? Should I simply publish V3 >> and wait for feedback from the different vendors? (I would hate to cause a >> simular situation again) >> >> 3. Should I post V3 on top of drm-next or drm-misc-next? > > The normal rule is: always work on drm-tip. That is what gets > tested by our CI as well. Yes, it does mean a bit of extra hurdles > during development since drm-tip is a rebasing tree, but there are > tools like dim retip to help out here. > > As for where to merge them. I would generally recommed against merging > i915 patches through drm-misc unless there is a very compelling reason > to do so. i915 is a fast moving target and if there are significant > changes coming in via drm-misc they usually will cause conflicts for > people during drm-tip rebuild. Also I would expect to see an ack > requested from i915 maintainers for merging anything significant via > drm-misc, which I don't think happened in this case. Indeed. All other things aside, it looks like it has enough conflict potential to warrant merging via drm-intel anyway. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
