From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Vetter Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the drm-misc tree Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 10:24:41 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20170719114657.245537cd@canb.auug.org.au> <20170721100833.48c8fa9d@canb.auug.org.au> <20170724100341.7c4c5e33@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170724100341.7c4c5e33@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Dave Airlie , Intel Graphics , DRI , Greg KH , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Hans de Goede List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 09:24:49 +0200 Daniel Vetter wrote: >> >> How are we going to handle this now? The refactor is deeply burried in >> drm-misc, I guess you could cherry-pick the relevant patches over. But >> that'll probably lead to more conflicts because git will get confused. > > I'll just keep applying the merge resolution patch and will remind Dave > and Greg about it during the week before the merge window opens so that > they can let Linus know that the fix up is needed. Well, Greg squeezed the vbox driver into -rc2, so now we already get to resolve this in a backmerge. And hopefully the bikeshed patches in -staging won't interfere too badly with whatever refactoring we'll do in drm-next. Greg, fyi this is the last time I'll ack a drm driver for staging. This just doesn't work. We're spending more time here working the -staging vs. drm-next conflicts than the actual vbox driver review has taken me. And probly less than the cleanup for merging directly to drm-next will end up taking. Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch