Hi all, On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 12:51:06 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_shrinker.c > > between commit: > > 2850748ef876 ("drm/i915: Pull i915_vma_pin under the vm->mutex") > > from the drm tree and commit: > > 5facae4f3549 ("locking/lockdep: Remove unused @nested argument from lock_release()") > > from the tip 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/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_shrinker.c > index fd3ce6da8497,1a51b3598d63..000000000000 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_shrinker.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_shrinker.c > @@@ -436,9 -497,22 +436,9 @@@ void i915_gem_shrinker_taints_mutex(str > > fs_reclaim_acquire(GFP_KERNEL); > > - /* > - * As we invariably rely on the struct_mutex within the shrinker, > - * but have a complicated recursion dance, taint all the mutexes used > - * within the shrinker with the struct_mutex. For completeness, we > - * taint with all subclass of struct_mutex, even though we should > - * only need tainting by I915_MM_NORMAL to catch possible ABBA > - * deadlocks from using struct_mutex inside @mutex. > - */ > - mutex_acquire(&i915->drm.struct_mutex.dep_map, > - I915_MM_SHRINKER, 0, _RET_IP_); > - > mutex_acquire(&mutex->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_); > - mutex_release(&mutex->dep_map, 0, _RET_IP_); > + mutex_release(&mutex->dep_map, _RET_IP_); > > - mutex_release(&i915->drm.struct_mutex.dep_map, _RET_IP_); > - > fs_reclaim_release(GFP_KERNEL); > > if (unlock) This is now a conflict between the drm tree and Linus' tree. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell