From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757184AbdACJR1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jan 2017 04:17:27 -0500 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:46438 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756044AbdACJRY (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jan 2017 04:17:24 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,451,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="804553448" From: Jani Nikula To: Stephen Rothwell , Daniel Vetter , Intel Graphics , DRI , Alex Williamson , Zhenyu Wang , Zhi Wang , igvt-g-dev@ml01.01.org Cc: Jike Song , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree with the vfio-fixes tree In-Reply-To: <20170103104002.3aab91a3@canb.auug.org.au> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo References: <20170103104002.3aab91a3@canb.auug.org.au> Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 11:17:19 +0200 Message-ID: <87inpwijts.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 03 Jan 2017, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree got a conflict in: > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c > > between commit: > > 99e3123e3d72 ("vfio-mdev: Make mdev_device private and abstract interfaces") > > from the vfio-fixes tree and commit: > > 364fb6b789ff ("drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt: prevent double-release of vgpu") > > from the drm-intel-fixes tree. Hi Stephen, while GVT-g is part of i915, it has its own mailing list and maintainers, listed under "INTEL GVT-g DRIVERS (Intel GPU Virtualization)" in MAINTAINERS. Please include them wrt linux-next conflicts in drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/. Added now. Thanks, Jani. > 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/kvmgt.c > index f8021a01df63,934963970288..000000000000 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c > @@@ -497,10 -500,19 +500,19 @@@ static int intel_vgpu_open(struct mdev_ > goto undo_iommu; > } > > - return kvmgt_guest_init(mdev); > + ret = kvmgt_guest_init(mdev); > + if (ret) > + goto undo_group; > + > + atomic_set(&vgpu->vdev.released, 0); > + return ret; > + > + undo_group: > + vfio_unregister_notifier(&mdev->dev, VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY, > + &vgpu->vdev.group_notifier); > > undo_iommu: > - vfio_unregister_notifier(&mdev->dev, VFIO_IOMMU_NOTIFY, > + vfio_unregister_notifier(mdev_dev(mdev), VFIO_IOMMU_NOTIFY, > &vgpu->vdev.iommu_notifier); > out: > return ret; > @@@ -513,10 -526,16 +526,16 @@@ static void __intel_vgpu_release(struc > if (!handle_valid(vgpu->handle)) > return; > > - vfio_unregister_notifier(mdev_dev(vgpu->vdev.mdev), VFIO_IOMMU_NOTIFY, > + if (atomic_cmpxchg(&vgpu->vdev.released, 0, 1)) > + return; > + > - ret = vfio_unregister_notifier(&vgpu->vdev.mdev->dev, VFIO_IOMMU_NOTIFY, > ++ ret = vfio_unregister_notifier(mdev_dev(vgpu->vdev.mdev), VFIO_IOMMU_NOTIFY, > &vgpu->vdev.iommu_notifier); > - vfio_unregister_notifier(mdev_dev(vgpu->vdev.mdev), VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY, > + WARN(ret, "vfio_unregister_notifier for iommu failed: %d\n", ret); > + > - ret = vfio_unregister_notifier(&vgpu->vdev.mdev->dev, VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY, > ++ ret = vfio_unregister_notifier(mdev_dev(vgpu->vdev.mdev), VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY, > &vgpu->vdev.group_notifier); > + WARN(ret, "vfio_unregister_notifier for group failed: %d\n", ret); > > info = (struct kvmgt_guest_info *)vgpu->handle; > kvmgt_guest_exit(info); > -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center