linux-next: manual merge of the drm tree with the mm tree

linux-next: manual merge of the drm tree with the mm tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1302 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the drm tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/accel/qaic/qaic_data.c

between commit:

  78f5d33f3dd4 ("mm, treewide: rename MAX_ORDER to MAX_PAGE_ORDER")

from the mm tree and commit:

  47fbee5f27ed ("accel/qaic: Update MAX_ORDER use to be inclusive")

from the drm 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/accel/qaic/qaic_data.c
index 24e886f857d5,cf2898eda7ae..000000000000
--- a/drivers/accel/qaic/qaic_data.c
+++ b/drivers/accel/qaic/qaic_data.c
@@@ -451,7 -452,7 +452,7 @@@ static int create_sgt(struct qaic_devic
  		 * later
  		 */
  		buf_extra = (PAGE_SIZE - size % PAGE_SIZE) % PAGE_SIZE;
- 		max_order = min(MAX_PAGE_ORDER - 1, get_order(size));
 -		max_order = min(MAX_ORDER, get_order(size));
++		max_order = min(MAX_PAGE_ORDER, get_order(size));
  	} else {
  		/* allocate a single page for book keeping */
  		nr_pages = 1;

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drm tree with the mm tree

[Jeffrey Hugo]

On 1/1/2024 4:52 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the drm tree got a conflict in:
> 
>    drivers/accel/qaic/qaic_data.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>    78f5d33f3dd4 ("mm, treewide: rename MAX_ORDER to MAX_PAGE_ORDER")
> 
> from the mm tree and commit:
> 
>    47fbee5f27ed ("accel/qaic: Update MAX_ORDER use to be inclusive")
> 
> from the drm 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.
> 

Thanks Stephen.  Your fixup is correct.

-Jeff