Hi all, On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 13:36:35 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in: > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/vgpu.c > > between commit: > > 04d6067f1f19 ("drm/i915/gvt: Fix unnecessary schedule timer when no vGPU exits") > > from the drm-intel-fixes tree and commit: > > 12d5861973c7 ("drm/i915/gvt: Make WARN* drm specific where vgpu ptr is available") > > from the drm-intel 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/gvt/vgpu.c > index 345c2aa3b491,abcde8ce1a9a..000000000000 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/vgpu.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/vgpu.c > @@@ -271,18 -272,12 +272,19 @@@ void intel_gvt_release_vgpu(struct inte > void intel_gvt_destroy_vgpu(struct intel_vgpu *vgpu) > { > struct intel_gvt *gvt = vgpu->gvt; > + struct drm_i915_private *i915 = gvt->gt->i915; > > - WARN(vgpu->active, "vGPU is still active!\n"); > - mutex_lock(&vgpu->vgpu_lock); > - > + drm_WARN(&i915->drm, vgpu->active, "vGPU is still active!\n"); > > + /* > + * remove idr first so later clean can judge if need to stop > + * service if no active vgpu. > + */ > + mutex_lock(&gvt->lock); > + idr_remove(&gvt->vgpu_idr, vgpu->id); > + mutex_unlock(&gvt->lock); > + > + mutex_lock(&vgpu->vgpu_lock); > intel_gvt_debugfs_remove_vgpu(vgpu); > intel_vgpu_clean_sched_policy(vgpu); > intel_vgpu_clean_submission(vgpu); This is now a conflict between the drm tree and Linus' tree. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell