Re: [PATCH 0/8] Retry page fault handling for Vega10

From: Felix Kuehling <felix.kuehling-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>
To: Oded Gabbay <oded.gabbay-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
	"Deucher,
	Alexander" <Alexander.Deucher-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>,
	John Bridgman <John.Bridgman-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>
Cc: "Koenig,
	Christian" <Christian.Koenig-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>,
	"amd-gfx-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org"
	<amd-gfx-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Retry page fault handling for Vega10
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 16:26:24 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <98666a00-977c-ec23-1099-2c20a69a3987@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFCwf11o=4iizAbRVNE2w3FoacU3yutKsbMvFGfLNTscv1Ym+A-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>

On 2017-09-12 01:48 AM, Oded Gabbay wrote:
> +John,
>
> If Alex is fine with it then I'm fine with it as well, as long as this
> is a temporary solution until some point where you have some
> convergence between your internal code and the upstream one.

Agreed. I want to converge those branches as soon as possible.

> And of course if you have amdkfd only changes then that can be
> upstreamed through me directly.

Yes.

>
> Having said that, if you/John/Alex think that this is a more permanent
> solution, then maybe a better plan is to first unify the drivers (as
> was discussed many times) before starting to upstream changes. If the
> 90% of the changes are in both drivers, then there is really no point
> of keeping amdkfd as a separate driver.

If we unify the drivers first, it would further diverge the branches.
That would be counter-productive in my opinion. I'd rather get the
branches to converge first and then unify the drivers so we don't have
to do it twice.

Regards,
  Felix

>
> Oded

_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx