Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with the mm tree

From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2025 10:35:53 +1100

Hi all,

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 12:16:50 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 13:03:48 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_driver.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   4fc0cee83590 ("drivers: remove get_task_comm() and print task comm directly")
> > 
> > from the mm-nonmm-unstable branch of the mm tree and commit:
> > 
> >   f5d38d4fa884 ("drm/i915/display: convert intel_display_driver.[ch] to struct intel_display")
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Cheers,
> > Stephen Rothwell
> > 
> > diff --cc drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_driver.c
> > index 62596424a9aa,497b4a1f045f..000000000000
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_driver.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_driver.c
> > @@@ -389,8 -397,9 +397,8 @@@ void intel_display_driver_resume_access
> >    * Returns %true if the current thread has display HW access, %false
> >    * otherwise.
> >    */
> > - bool intel_display_driver_check_access(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
> > + bool intel_display_driver_check_access(struct intel_display *display)
> >   {
> >  -	char comm[TASK_COMM_LEN];
> >   	char current_task[TASK_COMM_LEN + 16];
> >   	char allowed_task[TASK_COMM_LEN + 16] = "none";
> >   
> > @@@ -399,14 -408,15 +407,14 @@@
> >   		return true;
> >   
> >   	snprintf(current_task, sizeof(current_task), "%s[%d]",
> >  -		 get_task_comm(comm, current),
> >  -		 task_pid_vnr(current));
> >  +		 current->comm, task_pid_vnr(current));
> >   
> > - 	if (i915->display.access.allowed_task)
> > + 	if (display->access.allowed_task)
> >   		snprintf(allowed_task, sizeof(allowed_task), "%s[%d]",
> > - 			 i915->display.access.allowed_task->comm,
> > - 			 task_pid_vnr(i915->display.access.allowed_task));
> >  -			 get_task_comm(comm, display->access.allowed_task),
> > ++			 display->access.allowed_task->comm,
> > + 			 task_pid_vnr(display->access.allowed_task));
> >   
> > - 	drm_dbg_kms(&i915->drm,
> > + 	drm_dbg_kms(display->drm,
> >   		    "Reject display access from task %s (allowed to %s)\n",
> >   		    current_task, allowed_task);
> >     
> 
> This is now a conflict between the drm tree and the mm-nonmm-unstable
> branch of the mm tree.

And now a conflict between Linus' tree and the mm-nonmm-stable tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell