Hi all, On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 10:59:29 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > After merging the drm-misc tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 > allmodconfig) failed like this: > > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_amdkfd_gpuvm.c: In function 'amdgpu_amdkfd_gpuvm_free_memory_of_gpu': > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_amdkfd_gpuvm.c:1357:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'drm_gem_object_put_unlocked'; did you mean 'drm_gem_object_put_locked'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > 1357 | drm_gem_object_put_unlocked(&mem->bo->tbo.base); > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > | drm_gem_object_put_locked > > Caused by commit > > ab15d56e27be ("drm: remove transient drm_gem_object_put_unlocked()") > > interacting with commit > > fd9a9f8801de ("drm/amdgpu: Use GEM obj reference for KFD BOs") > > from Linus' tree. > > I have applied the following merge fix up patch for today. > > From: Stephen Rothwell > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 10:55:32 +1000 > Subject: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: remove stray drm_gem_object_put_unlocked > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_amdkfd_gpuvm.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_amdkfd_gpuvm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_amdkfd_gpuvm.c > index b91b5171270f..9015c7b76d60 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_amdkfd_gpuvm.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_amdkfd_gpuvm.c > @@ -1354,7 +1354,7 @@ int amdgpu_amdkfd_gpuvm_free_memory_of_gpu( > } > > /* Free the BO*/ > - drm_gem_object_put_unlocked(&mem->bo->tbo.base); > + drm_gem_object_put(&mem->bo->tbo.base); > mutex_destroy(&mem->lock); > kfree(mem); > > -- > 2.26.2 This fix is now needed when I merge the drm tree :-( Given that the drm tree is based on v5.8-rc2 and the commit from Linus' tree above was merged before v5.8-rc1, the above patch should be applied to the drm tree (and should have been part of the patch that merged the drm-misc tree). I am a bit suprised that the drm tree currently passes CI. Sorry, Dave, for not cc'ing you in the original report. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell