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

From: Jani Nikula <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2025 10:24:09 +0200

On Thu, 23 Jan 2025, Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 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.

Will be taken care of with backmerges after -rc1.

BR,
Jani.

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel