lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: remove alloc_vm_area v2
From
Date
+ Dave and Daniel
+ Stephen

Quoting Christoph Hellwig (2020-09-26 09:29:59)
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 07:43:49PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 15:58:42 +0200 Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
> >
> > > this series removes alloc_vm_area, which was left over from the big
> > > vmalloc interface rework. It is a rather arkane interface, basicaly
> > > the equivalent of get_vm_area + actually faulting in all PTEs in
> > > the allocated area. It was originally addeds for Xen (which isn't
> > > modular to start with), and then grew users in zsmalloc and i915
> > > which seems to mostly qualify as abuses of the interface, especially
> > > for i915 as a random driver should not set up PTE bits directly.
> > >
> > > Note that the i915 patches apply to the drm-tip branch of the drm-tip
> > > tree, as that tree has recent conflicting commits in the same area.
> >
> > Is the drm-tip material in linux-next yet? I'm still seeing a non-trivial
> > reject in there at present.
>
> I assumed it was, but the reject imply that they aren't. Tvrtko, do you
> know the details?

I think we have a gap that after splitting the drm-intel-next pull requests into
two the drm-intel/for-linux-next branch is now missing material from
drm-intel/drm-intel-gt-next.

I think a simple course of action might be to start including drm-intel-gt-next
in linux-next, which would mean that we should update DIM tooling to add
extra branch "drm-intel/gt-for-linux-next" or so.

Which specific patches are missing in this case?

Regards, Joonas

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-28 12:14    [W:0.089 / U:20.976 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site