On Mon, 16 Mar 2026 13:10:43 +0100 Thomas Zimmermann <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi > > Am 16.03.26 um 11:36 schrieb Boris Brezillon: > > On Mon, 16 Mar 2026 11:14:40 +0100 > > Thomas Zimmermann <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Am 16.03.26 um 10:50 schrieb Boris Brezillon: > >> > >>>> Avoid this race by adding a huge_fault callback to drm_gem_shmem_vm_ops > >>>> so that > >>>> PMD-sized mappings are handled through the appropriate huge page fault > >>>> path. > >> This patch will conflict heavily with the folio-tracking patches that > >> has been merged into upstream DRM. How do we deal with that? > > We need a fix in drm-misc-fixes since it's a bug that exists in v7.0, > > and a conflict resolution recorded in drm-tip to deal with the > > drm-misc-fixes vs drm-misc-next conflicts (I don't remember the exact > > process, but it's documented in dim). > > I can easily do that when I merge the fix into drm-misc-fixes. I'd only > need the fixed and tested patch that applies to the current > drm-misc-next beforehand. Let's wait until we've settled on a version we're happy with for drm-misc-fixes, I can provide a conflict resolution for drm-misc-next based on this final version.
