Hi, On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 01:03:43PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Fri, 05 Nov 2021, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 19:42:23 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 20:26:48 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> > > >> > After merging the drm-misc tree, today's linux-next build (arm > >> > multi_v7_defconfig) failed like this: > >> > > >> > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c:111:29: error: conflicting types for '__stack_depot_save' > >> > 111 | static depot_stack_handle_t __stack_depot_save(void) > >> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> > In file included from include/linux/page_ext.h:7, > >> > from include/linux/mm.h:25, > >> > from include/linux/kallsyms.h:13, > >> > from include/linux/bpf.h:20, > >> > from include/linux/bpf-cgroup.h:5, > >> > from include/linux/cgroup-defs.h:22, > >> > from include/linux/cgroup.h:28, > >> > from include/linux/memcontrol.h:13, > >> > from include/linux/swap.h:9, > >> > from include/linux/suspend.h:5, > >> > from include/linux/regulator/consumer.h:35, > >> > from include/linux/i2c.h:18, > >> > from include/drm/drm_crtc.h:28, > >> > from include/drm/drm_atomic.h:31, > >> > from drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c:24: > >> > include/linux/stackdepot.h:18:22: note: previous declaration of '__stack_depot_save' was here > >> > 18 | depot_stack_handle_t __stack_depot_save(unsigned long *entries, > >> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> > > >> > Caused by commit > >> > > >> > cd06ab2fd48f ("drm/locking: add backtrace for locking contended locks without backoff") > >> > > >> > This may only have been revealed because of another fix I have had to > >> > apply today. > >> > > >> > I have applied the following patch for today. > >> > > >> > From: Stephen Rothwell > >> > Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 20:17:52 +1100 > >> > Subject: [PATCH] drm/locking: fix for name conflict > >> > > >> > Fixes: cd06ab2fd48f ("drm/locking: add backtrace for locking contended locks without backoff") > >> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell > >> > --- > >> > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c | 6 +++--- > >> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >> > > >> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c > >> > index 4d32b61fa1fd..ee36dd20900d 100644 > >> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c > >> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c > >> > @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ > >> > static DEFINE_WW_CLASS(crtc_ww_class); > >> > > >> > #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_DEBUG_MODESET_LOCK) > >> > -static noinline depot_stack_handle_t __stack_depot_save(void) > >> > +static noinline depot_stack_handle_t __drm_stack_depot_save(void) > >> > { > >> > unsigned long entries[8]; > >> > unsigned int n; > >> > @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ static void __stack_depot_print(depot_stack_handle_t stack_depot) > >> > kfree(buf); > >> > } > >> > #else /* CONFIG_DRM_DEBUG_MODESET_LOCK */ > >> > -static depot_stack_handle_t __stack_depot_save(void) > >> > +static depot_stack_handle_t __drm_stack_depot_save(void) > >> > { > >> > return 0; > >> > } > >> > @@ -317,7 +317,7 @@ static inline int modeset_lock(struct drm_modeset_lock *lock, > >> > ret = 0; > >> > } else if (ret == -EDEADLK) { > >> > ctx->contended = lock; > >> > - ctx->stack_depot = __stack_depot_save(); > >> > + ctx->stack_depot = __drm_stack_depot_save(); > >> > } > >> > > >> > return ret; > >> > >> This has reappeared today. I don't know what happened to the drm-misc > >> tree over the weeked :-( > >> > >> I have reapplied the above fix. > > > > So the above drm-misc commit is now in the drm tree, but its fix up > > commit vanished from the drm-misc tree over the past weekend :-( > > Cc: drm-misc maintainers. > > We normally point drm-misc/for-linux-next at drm-misc-next, *except* to > drm-misc-next-fixes during the merge window. This is because > drm-misc-next already starts accumulating stuff that's headed to one > release later, e.g. currently v5.17. I think that's part of the reason. Indeed > I probably should have pushed c4f08d7246a5 ("drm/locking: fix > __stack_depot_* name conflict") to drm-misc-next-fixes. > > There's still something funny going on, because the drm-misc-next pull > request [1] isn't part of the drm pull request for v5.16 [2]. Is there > going to be another drm pull? The last drm-misc-next PR for some reason didn't got logged into patchwork, and Dave missed it. We found out yesterday, and he pulled it today so I assume there will be a second PR with that last PR and today's drm-misc-next-fixes PR. Maxime