Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Rodrigo Vivi]

On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 01:02:46PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Hans de Goede  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 11/14/22 11:10, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Hans de Goede  wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On 11/14/22 00:23, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>  Hi all,
> 
>  Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:
> 
>    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c
> 
>  between commit:
> 
>    b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another 
>  backlight should be used (v2)")
> 
>  from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>    801543b2593b ("drm/i915: stop including i915_irq.h from i915_trace.h")
> 
>  from the drm-intel tree.
> >>>
> >>> This is weird, because the:
> >>>
> >>>b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another 
> >>> backlight should be used (v2)")
> >>>
> >>> commit is in 6.1-rc1, so there can only be a conflict it 6.1-rc1 has not
> >>> been back-merged into drm-intel yet ?
> >> 
> >> That's the reason it *is* a conflict, right?
> >
> > Right what I was trying to say is that I am surprised that 6.1-rc1 has not
> > been back-merged into drm-intel yet even though it has been released
> > 4 weeks ago.
> 
> Right, -ENOCOFFEE at my end.
> 
> > I thought it was more or less standard process to backmerge rc1 soon after
> > it is released ?
> 
> The delay may be because v6.1-rc1 brought in more regressions for us
> than any other -rc1 in recent memory. Our CI's been suffering, and our
> folks have been spending a lot of time debugging, bisecting and
> reporting. (And before you ask, yes, we're going to be more proactive in
> reporting issues we find in linux-next.)
> 
> That said, Rodrigo's been in charge of drm-intel-next this cycle, maybe
> it's time to backmerge drm-next?

yeap, I'm on it...

> 
> 
> BR,
> Jani.
> 
> -- 
> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center

Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Joonas Lahtinen]

Quoting Stephen Rothwell (2018-03-23 02:50:18)
> Hi all,
> 
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 13:21:29 +1100 Stephen Rothwell  
> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/scheduler.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   fa3dd623e559 ("drm/i915/gvt: keep oa config in shadow ctx")
> > 
> > from Linus' tree and commit:
> > 
> >   b20c0d5ce104 ("drm/i915/gvt: Update PDPs after a vGPU mm object is 
> > pinned.")
> > 
> > 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.

Hi Stephen,

Thanks for solving this, the resolution is correct.

You may want to replace Daniel, as the recipient here, with the current
i915 maintainers to get a faster feedback next time :)



> This is now a conflict between the drm tree and Linus' tree.
> 

My bad for not highlighting the merge conflict in my PR to Dave. He
probably did not notice, getting the resolution automatically from
drm-rerere, I'd guess. I've noted it in the ever improving draft of
things to remember with the PRs.

I'm very much currently flying based on what the previous PR authors
have remembered to tell me. But after 4.17, the cycle is complete and we
all "have been there, done that", and you can expect less of a turbulence.

(We'll probably have more magnificent documentation, too.)

Regards, Joonas

> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
> 
> 
> ___
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> intel-...@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel