From: "Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
Dave Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
Intel Graphics <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
DRI <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drm tree with the drm-misc-fixes tree
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2021 08:31:18 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c55af047-3207-fb42-19ee-71f2e18e60ac@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211222145014.472328be@canb.auug.org.au>
Hi Stephen,
Am 22.12.21 um 04:50 schrieb Stephen Rothwell:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the drm tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_fence.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 67f74302f45d ("drm/nouveau: wait for the exclusive fence after the shared ones v2")
>
> from the drm-misc-fixes tree and commit:
>
> 40298cb45071 ("drm/nouveau: use the new iterator in nouveau_fence_sync")
>
> from the drm tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just used the latter version) 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.
>
That will cause a performance regression in linux-next for nouveau users.
The real fix is already queued up for merging into drm-next. So no
immediately action item here.
Just keep it in the back of your mind in case any nouveau users starts
to complain about the performance in linux-next.
Thanks,
Christian.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
Dave Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
Intel Graphics <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
DRI <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Cc: Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drm tree with the drm-misc-fixes tree
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2021 08:31:18 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c55af047-3207-fb42-19ee-71f2e18e60ac@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211222145014.472328be@canb.auug.org.au>
Hi Stephen,
Am 22.12.21 um 04:50 schrieb Stephen Rothwell:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the drm tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_fence.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 67f74302f45d ("drm/nouveau: wait for the exclusive fence after the shared ones v2")
>
> from the drm-misc-fixes tree and commit:
>
> 40298cb45071 ("drm/nouveau: use the new iterator in nouveau_fence_sync")
>
> from the drm tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just used the latter version) 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.
>
That will cause a performance regression in linux-next for nouveau users.
The real fix is already queued up for merging into drm-next. So no
immediately action item here.
Just keep it in the back of your mind in case any nouveau users starts
to complain about the performance in linux-next.
Thanks,
Christian.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
Dave Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
Intel Graphics <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
DRI <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Cc: Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the drm tree with the drm-misc-fixes tree
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2021 08:31:18 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c55af047-3207-fb42-19ee-71f2e18e60ac@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211222145014.472328be@canb.auug.org.au>
Hi Stephen,
Am 22.12.21 um 04:50 schrieb Stephen Rothwell:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the drm tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_fence.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 67f74302f45d ("drm/nouveau: wait for the exclusive fence after the shared ones v2")
>
> from the drm-misc-fixes tree and commit:
>
> 40298cb45071 ("drm/nouveau: use the new iterator in nouveau_fence_sync")
>
> from the drm tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just used the latter version) 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.
>
That will cause a performance regression in linux-next for nouveau users.
The real fix is already queued up for merging into drm-next. So no
immediately action item here.
Just keep it in the back of your mind in case any nouveau users starts
to complain about the performance in linux-next.
Thanks,
Christian.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-22 7:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 68+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-22 3:50 linux-next: manual merge of the drm tree with the drm-misc-fixes tree Stephen Rothwell
2021-12-22 3:50 ` [Intel-gfx] " Stephen Rothwell
2021-12-22 3:50 ` Stephen Rothwell
2021-12-22 7:31 ` Christian König [this message]
2021-12-22 7:31 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König
2021-12-22 7:31 ` Christian König
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2023-11-22 0:29 Stephen Rothwell
2023-11-22 0:29 ` Stephen Rothwell
2023-11-28 10:04 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2023-11-28 10:04 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2023-09-28 2:05 Stephen Rothwell
2023-09-28 2:05 ` Stephen Rothwell
2023-06-27 1:54 Stephen Rothwell
2023-06-27 1:54 ` Stephen Rothwell
2023-07-11 1:17 ` Stephen Rothwell
2023-07-11 1:17 ` Stephen Rothwell
2022-11-21 2:06 Stephen Rothwell
2022-11-21 2:06 ` Stephen Rothwell
2022-07-11 2:47 Stephen Rothwell
2022-07-11 2:47 ` Stephen Rothwell
2022-07-11 8:05 ` Christian König
2022-07-11 8:05 ` Christian König
2022-07-17 23:44 ` Stephen Rothwell
2022-07-17 23:44 ` Stephen Rothwell
2022-07-19 7:35 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2022-07-19 7:35 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2022-07-27 2:55 ` Stephen Rothwell
2022-07-27 2:55 ` Stephen Rothwell
2022-07-27 3:24 ` Dave Airlie
2022-07-27 3:24 ` Dave Airlie
2022-07-27 5:37 ` Stephen Rothwell
2022-07-27 5:37 ` Stephen Rothwell
2022-03-18 0:55 Stephen Rothwell
2022-03-18 0:55 ` Stephen Rothwell
2022-03-18 1:06 ` Stephen Rothwell
2022-03-18 1:06 ` Stephen Rothwell
2021-11-29 23:33 Stephen Rothwell
2021-11-29 23:33 ` Stephen Rothwell
2021-11-30 8:58 ` Maxime Ripard
2021-11-30 8:58 ` Maxime Ripard
2021-11-30 20:35 ` Stephen Rothwell
2021-11-30 20:35 ` Stephen Rothwell
2021-10-22 0:53 Stephen Rothwell
2021-06-17 1:42 Stephen Rothwell
2021-06-17 1:42 ` Stephen Rothwell
2021-04-09 3:12 Stephen Rothwell
2021-04-09 3:12 ` Stephen Rothwell
2021-03-18 1:02 Stephen Rothwell
2021-03-18 1:02 ` Stephen Rothwell
2021-03-18 6:51 ` Tomi Valkeinen
2021-03-18 6:51 ` Tomi Valkeinen
2020-07-28 3:41 Stephen Rothwell
2020-07-28 3:41 ` Stephen Rothwell
2020-05-01 3:45 Stephen Rothwell
2020-05-01 3:45 ` Stephen Rothwell
2020-03-01 23:43 Stephen Rothwell
2020-03-01 23:43 ` Stephen Rothwell
2019-09-15 21:18 Mark Brown
2019-09-16 5:29 ` Vasily Khoruzhick
2019-09-17 2:43 ` Qiang Yu
2019-08-26 3:06 Stephen Rothwell
2019-08-29 10:11 ` james qian wang (Arm Technology China)
2019-08-29 10:11 ` james qian wang (Arm Technology China)
2018-11-26 2:37 Stephen Rothwell
2018-03-08 0:47 Stephen Rothwell
2017-12-13 23:59 Stephen Rothwell
2017-12-13 23:59 ` Stephen Rothwell
2017-01-17 0:59 Stephen Rothwell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=c55af047-3207-fb42-19ee-71f2e18e60ac@amd.com \
--to=christian.koenig@amd.com \
--cc=airlied@linux.ie \
--cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.