On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 01:43:28PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 09:04:55AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 09:00:31AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > @@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ static int virtio_gpu_context_create(struct virtio_gpu_device *vgdev, > > > > > > if (handle < 0) > > > return handle; > > > + handle++; > > > virtio_gpu_cmd_context_create(vgdev, handle, nlen, name); > > > return handle; > > > } > > > > Uh. This line is missing. > > > > - int handle = ida_alloc_min(&vgdev->ctx_id_ida, 1, GFP_KERNEL); > > + int handle = ida_alloc(&vgdev->ctx_id_ida, GFP_KERNEL); > > > > It'll be there in v2 ;-) > > I've touched the resource/object id handling too, see my "drm/virtio: > rework ttm resource handling" patch series > (https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/50382/). Which still needs a > review btw. Um, according to patchwork, you only posted it yesterday. Does DRM normally expect a review within 24 hours? > I think that series obsoletes patch 3/4 (object id fixes) of your > series. The other patches should rebase without too much trouble, you > could do that as well when preparing v2 ... It seems a little odd to me to expect a drive-by contributor (ie me) to rebase their patches on top of a patch series which wasn't even posted at the time they contributed their original patch. If it was already in -next, that'd be a reasonable request. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
