From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S966438AbdADJHI (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jan 2017 04:07:08 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f67.google.com ([74.125.82.67]:35491 "EHLO mail-wm0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758587AbdADJHF (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jan 2017 04:07:05 -0500 Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 10:07:00 +0100 From: Daniel Vetter To: Alex Williamson Cc: Jani Nikula , Zhenyu Wang , Stephen Rothwell , Daniel Vetter , Intel Graphics , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, DRI , linux-next@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: build failure after merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree Message-ID: <20170104090700.yikowiec7nrpgb3d@phenom.ffwll.local> Mail-Followup-To: Alex Williamson , Jani Nikula , Zhenyu Wang , Stephen Rothwell , Intel Graphics , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, DRI , linux-next@vger.kernel.org References: <20170103104239.67dd95ba@canb.auug.org.au> <20170103025929.35gp5n27uc7iszra@zhen-hp.sh.intel.com> <20170102214857.6ad8f2eb@t450s.home> <20170103092317.slzmtrdzzrjzbypw@zhen-hp.sh.intel.com> <8737h0i8cb.fsf@intel.com> <20170103133717.319f60aa@t450s.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170103133717.319f60aa@t450s.home> X-Operating-System: Linux phenom 4.8.0-1-amd64 User-Agent: NeoMutt/20161126 (1.7.1) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 01:37:17PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 15:25:24 +0200 > Jani Nikula wrote: > > > On Tue, 03 Jan 2017, Zhenyu Wang 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