lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: linux-next: manual merge of the usb tree with the drm-intel-fixes tree
From
On 1/31/2023 04:44, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 01:03:05PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the usb tree got a conflict in:
>>
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> 5bc4b43d5c6c ("drm/i915: Fix up locking around dumping requests lists")
>>
>> from the drm-intel-fixes tree and commit:
>>
>> 4d70c74659d9 ("i915: Move list_count() to list.h as list_count_nodes() for broader use")
>>
>> from the usb tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (the former removed the code changed by the latter)
> Hmm... Currently I see that 20230127002842.3169194-4-John.C.Harrison@Intel.com
> moves the code to the drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c.
>
> Is there any new series beside the above mentioned that touches that file and
> actually _removes_ that code?
As long as the removal is limited to list_count/list_count_nodes, that's
fine. I only moved it from one file to another because the one and only
function that was using it was being moved to the other file. If someone
else has found a use for the same and wants to move it to a more common
place then great. I assume there was no conflict happening in the i915
specific code.

John.

>
>> 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.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-27 00:04    [W:0.057 / U:0.696 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site