From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bali.collaboradmins.com (bali.collaboradmins.com [148.251.105.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD9C533688F; Tue, 19 May 2026 11:51:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.251.105.195 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779191520; cv=none; b=gVdPOHMMiPTr9HxTOIqbF6X/Pr+8zKQi6a24J9cjL284tcwaKIlFge8de3qTHo4skkP3qLtzQ3KvbGXnWbOh9l9X/kmJn1ZbBkmGta8e0dlszvSYX8Vfi+1n3t7yt/6dAk0N3zLbevqpLIP+1VuR53cKdmficSp3s8f+P3Cl+kg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779191520; c=relaxed/simple; bh=jbSzG0VtOj+D5yiSmtQrt4/n6aP0jMaP1sW019EHN2Y=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=bGbmQrGBXW6XLkosbOi8sSK5yaKZ/+Ioa/dHS0H+qS0K7kNur2RKLlkLBmU/P8KUJfulg01LHZG0Z2XNbFNXxIDFHoaYox7fW6aHGoaW6LckyOE2g9G5HdZ4o7smy9cLbZE+rD7QJROoMIlMSZySdD6r06Qbq7x9vr9Y4b7B/HQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=collabora.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=collabora.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=collabora.com header.i=@collabora.com header.b=XNSXDvzm; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.251.105.195 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=collabora.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=collabora.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=collabora.com header.i=@collabora.com header.b="XNSXDvzm" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=collabora.com; s=mail; t=1779191517; bh=jbSzG0VtOj+D5yiSmtQrt4/n6aP0jMaP1sW019EHN2Y=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=XNSXDvzmZDxB4QwZBHIeI8DvfDu/jGjXBYWoi9SvzDGquBb+aLlPq7+pBUe28++LG 8lV2PtzjO7a9LHYpj9WiWBKfXKw4dl88CXJegMU4HdnYKYmPTfuyasXvIhsIEItXDP gv6U3wbQbSjZLt9RyETQSfP7ueK+9Oxpz0T5q6ceDnRWAKcS4m6fsbA7BJcPiC48yT fpMiGnJ1ezyJNh6NLlJ+RopDlqJg2y3+BioLf3F3rQdcxLhGGgC/psWo5ixYFWWG8i 0Beo6NhQLnVI9PhsSpEnojfbxR0qXQEYRJAArntKWZXKAEDeJvthsu9EqXsrWhnZvS /oE3WmYBUfuAw== Received: from fedora (unknown [100.64.0.11]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bbrezillon) by bali.collaboradmins.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5512417E0B69; Tue, 19 May 2026 13:51:56 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 19 May 2026 13:51:53 +0200 From: Boris Brezillon To: Mark Brown Cc: Steven Price , Liviu Dudau , Dmitry Osipenko , Maarten Lankhorst , Maxime Ripard , Thomas Zimmermann , David Airlie , Simona Vetter , Akash Goel , Chia-I Wu , Rob Clark , Dmitry Baryshkov , Abhinav Kumar , Jessica Zhang , Sean Paul , Marijn Suijten , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rob Clark Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] drm/gem: Make the GEM LRU lock part of drm_device Message-ID: <20260519135153.42c3f4a0@fedora> In-Reply-To: References: <20260518-panthor-shrinker-fixes-v4-1-1920234470d5@collabora.com> <20260518165225.145175b1@fedora> Organization: Collabora X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.4.0 (GTK 3.24.52; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 19 May 2026 12:37:16 +0100 Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 04:52:25PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > +Mark for the silent conflict resolution needed to reconcile > > drm-misc-fixes and drm-next/drm-misc-next. > > This doesn't appear to be a drm-misc thing, I was seeing issues on the > DRM tree. The patch does seem to ahve resolved things though. Please > consider topic branches! I'm just following the dim guide for resolution of conflicts between drm trees[1], so that's probably something to discuss with the DRM/DRM-misc maintainers. As for the suggestion to use topic branches, I've never heard of it being used for -fixes vs -next conflict resolution, every time I've gone through this process it was for xxx-next vs yyy-next conflict (xxx and yyy being different subsystem trees). Maxime, Thomas, Maarteen, Sima and/or Dave, any suggestion/opinion? [1]https://drm.pages.freedesktop.org/maintainer-tools/committer/conflict-resolution.html