linux-next: build failure after merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree

linux-next: build failure after merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 780 bytes --]

Hi all,

After merging the drm-misc-fixes tree, today's linux-next build
(x86_allmodconfig) failed like this:

  CC [M]  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.o
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.c: In function ‘i915_gem_evict_for_node’:
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.c:318:31: error: implicit declaration of function ‘i915_vma_has_userfault’; did you mean ‘i915_vma_pin_count’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
   if (flags & PIN_NONFAULT && i915_vma_has_userfault(vma)) {
                               ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                               i915_vma_pin_count

Caused by commit

  72872c99b6dbc ("drm/i915: Check PIN_NONFAULT overlaps in evict_for_node")

in the drm-intel-fixes tree.  I've used the tree from yesterday.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 907 bytes --]

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 08:03:00AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> After merging the drm-misc-fixes tree, today's linux-next build
> (x86_allmodconfig) failed like this:
> 
>   CC [M]  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.o
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.c: In function ‘i915_gem_evict_for_node’:
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.c:318:31: error: implicit declaration of function ‘i915_vma_has_userfault’; did you mean ‘i915_vma_pin_count’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>    if (flags & PIN_NONFAULT && i915_vma_has_userfault(vma)) {
>                                ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>                                i915_vma_pin_count
> 
> Caused by commit
> 
>   72872c99b6dbc ("drm/i915: Check PIN_NONFAULT overlaps in evict_for_node")
> 
> in the drm-intel-fixes tree.  I've used the tree from yesterday.

This is still present today.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: build failure after merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree

[Rodrigo Vivi]

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 08:51:06AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 08:03:00AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > After merging the drm-misc-fixes tree, today's linux-next build
> > (x86_allmodconfig) failed like this:
> > 
> >   CC [M]  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.o
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.c: In function ‘i915_gem_evict_for_node’:
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.c:318:31: error: implicit declaration of function ‘i915_vma_has_userfault’; did you mean ‘i915_vma_pin_count’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >    if (flags & PIN_NONFAULT && i915_vma_has_userfault(vma)) {
> >                                ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >                                i915_vma_pin_count
> > 
> > Caused by commit
> > 
> >   72872c99b6dbc ("drm/i915: Check PIN_NONFAULT overlaps in evict_for_node")
> > 
> > in the drm-intel-fixes tree.  I've used the tree from yesterday.
> 
> This is still present today.

It is fixed now. Sorry for the trouble.

> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: build failure after merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 31/01/2022 22:27, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> After merging the drm-intel-fixes tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> allmodconfig) failed like this:
> 
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_vma.c: In function 'i915_vma_bind':
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_vma.c:451:25: error: 'ret' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'net'?
>    451 |                         ret = i915_gem_object_wait_moving_fence(vma->obj, true);
>        |                         ^~~
>        |                         net
> 
> Caused by commit
> 
>    2e872d87cbf2 ("drm/i915: delete shadow "ret" variable")
> 
> I have reverted that commit for today.

Dropping was the right call - I have since removed it from 
drm-intel-fixes as well.

Root cause was a bad Fixes: tag in that patch which caused it to be 
wrongly cherry-picked and I did not build test before pushing.

We can't edit the wrong Fixes: tag now, so for future reference only, 
2e872d87cbf2 ("drm/i915: delete shadow "ret" variable") should not be 
backported to 5.17 by anyone.

Wrong tag:
Fixes: f6c466b84cfa ("drm/i915: Add support for moving fence waiting")

Correct tag should have been:
Fixes: 2f6b90da9192 ("drm/i915: Use vma resources for async unbinding")

Regards,

Tvrtko

Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: build failure after merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree

[Jani Nikula]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019, Lucas De Marchi <lucas.de.marchi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 2:39 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> After merging the drm-intel-fixes tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
>> allmodconfig) failed like this:
>>
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c: In function 'has_bogus_dpll_config':
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c:15432:27: error: macro "IS_GEN" requires 3 arguments, but only 2 given
>>   return IS_GEN(dev_priv, 6) &&
>>                            ^
>>
>> Caused by commit
>>
>>   a49a17226feb ("drm/i915: Try to sanitize bogus DPLL state left over by broken SNB BIOSen")
>>
>> It seems this was cherry-picked incorrectly :-(
>
> while the cherry-pick was correct, the macro is different on
> drm-intel-fixes. IS_GEN(dev_priv, 6) needs to be converted to
> IS_GEN6(dev_priv).
>
> Lucas De Marchi
>
>>
>> I have reverted that commit for today.

Dropped the commit from drm-intel-fixes.

Somehow I had managed to screw up my kernel config in a way that avoided
the build failure.

BR,
Jani.

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center

Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: build failure after merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree

[Lucas De Marchi]

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 2:39 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the drm-intel-fixes tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> allmodconfig) failed like this:
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c: In function 'has_bogus_dpll_config':
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c:15432:27: error: macro "IS_GEN" requires 3 arguments, but only 2 given
>   return IS_GEN(dev_priv, 6) &&
>                            ^
>
> Caused by commit
>
>   a49a17226feb ("drm/i915: Try to sanitize bogus DPLL state left over by broken SNB BIOSen")
>
> It seems this was cherry-picked incorrectly :-(

while the cherry-pick was correct, the macro is different on
drm-intel-fixes. IS_GEN(dev_priv, 6) needs to be converted to
IS_GEN6(dev_priv).

Lucas De Marchi

>
> I have reverted that commit for today.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx



-- 
Lucas De Marchi

Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: build failure after merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree

[Daniel Vetter]

On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 01:37:17PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 15:25:24 +0200
> Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 03 Jan 2017, Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On 2017.01.02 21:48:57 -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:  
> > >> > Alex, I liked to have kvmgt related mdev interface change be merged through
> > >> > vfio tree, but wasn't awared one of Jike's fix had conflict. Could you apply
> > >> > below fix in your tree? I think in general for possible interface change in
> > >> > future we still need a pull request for i915 to resolve dependence earlier.  
> > >> 
> > >> Hi Zhenyu,
> > >> 
> > >> Hopefully this abstraction will help to isolate vendor drivers from
> > >> mdev API changes in the future.  I can certainly roll this patch into
> > >> the original to maintain bisectability.  I want to get these changes in
> > >> for rc3, will a pull request for the i915 changes be sent this week?  
> > >
> > > Send to Jani who is managing i915 fixes pull.  
> > 
> > Send what to me? I've pushed fixes to drm-intel-fixes today for testing,
> > and expect to send a pull request to Dave early Thursday. If there's a
> > conflict, it can usually be solved while merging, like Stephen has done.
> 
> Unless there's some preference otherwise, I was only asking if the i915
> changes were queued for rc3 such that I could trail behind them and
> fixup the mdev API change without relying on it getting caught in the
> merge.  If we're happy to do it at merge time, I won't worry about it.

Dave Airlie is still on vacation, so I expect drm fixes pull request to
get a bit delayed. I think adding a warning when sending each respective
pull to Linus about this is the best approach, to avoid stalling mdev
fixes.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch

Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: build failure after merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree

[Alex Williamson]

On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 15:25:24 +0200
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 03 Jan 2017, Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On 2017.01.02 21:48:57 -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:  
> >> > Alex, I liked to have kvmgt related mdev interface change be merged through
> >> > vfio tree, but wasn't awared one of Jike's fix had conflict. Could you apply
> >> > below fix in your tree? I think in general for possible interface change in
> >> > future we still need a pull request for i915 to resolve dependence earlier.  
> >> 
> >> Hi Zhenyu,
> >> 
> >> Hopefully this abstraction will help to isolate vendor drivers from
> >> mdev API changes in the future.  I can certainly roll this patch into
> >> the original to maintain bisectability.  I want to get these changes in
> >> for rc3, will a pull request for the i915 changes be sent this week?  
> >
> > Send to Jani who is managing i915 fixes pull.  
> 
> Send what to me? I've pushed fixes to drm-intel-fixes today for testing,
> and expect to send a pull request to Dave early Thursday. If there's a
> conflict, it can usually be solved while merging, like Stephen has done.

Unless there's some preference otherwise, I was only asking if the i915
changes were queued for rc3 such that I could trail behind them and
fixup the mdev API change without relying on it getting caught in the
merge.  If we're happy to do it at merge time, I won't worry about it.
Thanks,

Alex

Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: build failure after merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree

[Jani Nikula]

On Tue, 03 Jan 2017, Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 2017.01.02 21:48:57 -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
>> > Alex, I liked to have kvmgt related mdev interface change be merged through
>> > vfio tree, but wasn't awared one of Jike's fix had conflict. Could you apply
>> > below fix in your tree? I think in general for possible interface change in
>> > future we still need a pull request for i915 to resolve dependence earlier.
>> 
>> Hi Zhenyu,
>> 
>> Hopefully this abstraction will help to isolate vendor drivers from
>> mdev API changes in the future.  I can certainly roll this patch into
>> the original to maintain bisectability.  I want to get these changes in
>> for rc3, will a pull request for the i915 changes be sent this week?
>
> Send to Jani who is managing i915 fixes pull.

Send what to me? I've pushed fixes to drm-intel-fixes today for testing,
and expect to send a pull request to Dave early Thursday. If there's a
conflict, it can usually be solved while merging, like Stephen has done.

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center