Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/dmabuf: fix broken build

[Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>]

On 28/10/2021 09:48, Matthew Auld wrote:
> On 28/10/2021 02:43, Vivi, Rodrigo wrote:
>> On Wed, 2021-10-27 at 10:48 +0100, Matthew Auld wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 at 10:44, Jani Nikula
>>> <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021, Matthew Auld <matthew.william.auld@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 at 09:58, Jani Nikula
>>>>> <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021, Matthew Auld
>>>>>> <matthew.william.auld@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 at 13:54, Matthew Auld
>>>>>>> <matthew.auld@intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wbinvd_on_all_cpus() is only defined on x86 it seems, plus
>>>>>>>> we need to
>>>>>>>> include asm/smp.h here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
>>>>>>>> Cc: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jani, would it make sense to cherry-pick this to -fixes? The
>>>>>>> offending
>>>>>>> commit is in drm-next, and there have been a few reports
>>>>>>> around this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fixes: a035154da45d ("drm/i915/dmabuf: add paranoid flush-on-
>>>>>>> acquire")
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the Fixes: tag is in place, our tooling will cherry-pick it
>>>>>> where it
>>>>>> belongs. (In this case, drm-intel-next-fixes, not drm-intel-
>>>>>> fixes.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, I forgot to add the fixes tag here unfortunately.
>>>>
>>>> Already merged? What's the commit id to be cherry-picked? Rodrigo
>>>> can do
>>>> it manually.
>>>
>>> Yeah, it was merged to gt-next:
>>>
>>> 777226dac058 ("drm/i915/dmabuf: fix broken build")
>>
>> picked up to drm-intel-next-fixes
> 
> Thanks.

Hmm it looks like we have this in -fixes (and in -gt) while Linus has 
explicitly thrown it out (see 
https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2021-November/330928.html). 


End result is that now we have a different Kernel Test Robot warning 
("asm/smp.h is included more than once.").

So we need to fish out "drm/i915/dmabuf: fix broken build" out from 
fixes with a revert or what?

Regards,

Tvrtko

> 
>>
>> thanks,
>> Rodrigo.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note to self, we should set up some way to check which maintainer
>>>> is
>>>> responsible for which branches and when.
>>>>
>>>> BR,
>>>> Jani.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cc: Rodrigo who covers drm-intel-next-fixes atm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BR,
>>>>>> Jani.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_dmabuf.c | 7 +++++++
>>>>>>>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_dmabuf.c
>>>>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_dmabuf.c
>>>>>>>> index 1adcd8e02d29..a45d0ec2c5b6 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_dmabuf.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_dmabuf.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -12,6 +12,13 @@
>>>>>>>>   #include "i915_gem_object.h"
>>>>>>>>   #include "i915_scatterlist.h"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_X86)
>>>>>>>> +#include <asm/smp.h>
>>>>>>>> +#else
>>>>>>>> +#define wbinvd_on_all_cpus() \
>>>>>>>> +       pr_warn(DRIVER_NAME ": Missing cache flush in
>>>>>>>> %s\n", __func__)
>>>>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>   I915_SELFTEST_DECLARE(static bool
>>>>>>>> force_different_devices;)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   static struct drm_i915_gem_object *dma_buf_to_obj(struct
>>>>>>>> dma_buf *buf)
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> 2.26.3
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
>>