Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1549458 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-01-03 00:50 +0100 |
| Last post | 2017-01-04 10:10 +0100 |
| Articles | 8 — 5 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
linux-next: build failure after merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2017-01-03 00:50 +0100
Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com> - 2017-01-03 04:10 +0100
Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2017-01-03 05:10 +0100
Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> - 2017-01-03 05:50 +0100
Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com> - 2017-01-03 10:30 +0100
Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: build failure after merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> - 2017-01-03 14:30 +0100
Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: build failure after merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> - 2017-01-03 21:40 +0100
Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: build failure after merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> - 2017-01-04 10:10 +0100
| From | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-03 00:50 +0100 |
| Subject | linux-next: build failure after merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree |
| Message-ID | <sVkwx-5RO-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Hi all,
After merging the drm-intel-fixes tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
allmodconfig) failed like this:
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c: In function 'intel_vgpu_open':
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c:511:32: error: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type 'struct mdev_device'
vfio_unregister_notifier(&mdev->dev, VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY,
^
Caused by commit
99e3123e3d72 ("vfio-mdev: Make mdev_device private and abstract interfaces")
from the vfio-fixes tree interacting with commit
364fb6b789ff ("drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt: prevent double-release of vgpu")
from the drm-intel-fixes tree.
I applied this merge fix patch:
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 10:38:48 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] vfio-mdev: fixup for "Make mdev_device private and abstract interfaces"
Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
index c24b665e007b..faaae07ae487 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
@@ -508,7 +508,7 @@ static int intel_vgpu_open(struct mdev_device *mdev)
return ret;
undo_group:
- vfio_unregister_notifier(&mdev->dev, VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY,
+ vfio_unregister_notifier(mdev_dev(mdev), VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY,
&vgpu->vdev.group_notifier);
undo_iommu:
--
2.10.2
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-03 04:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sVnE5-8fN-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1549458 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 2017.01.03 10:42:39 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the drm-intel-fixes tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> allmodconfig) failed like this:
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c: In function 'intel_vgpu_open':
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c:511:32: error: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type 'struct mdev_device'
> vfio_unregister_notifier(&mdev->dev, VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY,
> ^
>
> Caused by commit
>
> 99e3123e3d72 ("vfio-mdev: Make mdev_device private and abstract interfaces")
>
> from the vfio-fixes tree interacting with commit
>
> 364fb6b789ff ("drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt: prevent double-release of vgpu")
>
> from the drm-intel-fixes tree.
Alex, I liked to have kvmgt related mdev interface change be merged through
vfio tree, but wasn't awared one of Jike's fix had conflict. Could you apply
below fix in your tree? I think in general for possible interface change in
future we still need a pull request for i915 to resolve dependence earlier.
Thanks.
>
> I applied this merge fix patch:
>
> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 10:38:48 +1100
> Subject: [PATCH] vfio-mdev: fixup for "Make mdev_device private and abstract interfaces"
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> index c24b665e007b..faaae07ae487 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> @@ -508,7 +508,7 @@ static int intel_vgpu_open(struct mdev_device *mdev)
> return ret;
>
> undo_group:
> - vfio_unregister_notifier(&mdev->dev, VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY,
> + vfio_unregister_notifier(mdev_dev(mdev), VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY,
> &vgpu->vdev.group_notifier);
>
> undo_iommu:
> --
> 2.10.2
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
--
Open Source Technology Center, Intel ltd.
$gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 4D781827
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-03 05:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree |
| Message-ID | <sVoA9-v7-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1549510 |
Hi Zhenyu, On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 10:59:29 +0800 Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > Alex, I liked to have kvmgt related mdev interface change be merged through > vfio tree, but wasn't awared one of Jike's fix had conflict. Could you apply > below fix in your tree? I think in general for possible interface change in > future we still need a pull request for i915 to resolve dependence earlier. This only happens because I merge both trees (I think) ... -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-03 05:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree |
| Message-ID | <sVpcR-Jg-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1549510 |
On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 10:59:29 +0800
Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 2017.01.03 10:42:39 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > After merging the drm-intel-fixes tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> > allmodconfig) failed like this:
> >
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c: In function 'intel_vgpu_open':
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c:511:32: error: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type 'struct mdev_device'
> > vfio_unregister_notifier(&mdev->dev, VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY,
> > ^
> >
> > Caused by commit
> >
> > 99e3123e3d72 ("vfio-mdev: Make mdev_device private and abstract interfaces")
> >
> > from the vfio-fixes tree interacting with commit
> >
> > 364fb6b789ff ("drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt: prevent double-release of vgpu")
> >
> > from the drm-intel-fixes tree.
>
> Alex, I liked to have kvmgt related mdev interface change be merged through
> vfio tree, but wasn't awared one of Jike's fix had conflict. Could you apply
> below fix in your tree? I think in general for possible interface change in
> future we still need a pull request for i915 to resolve dependence earlier.
Hi Zhenyu,
Hopefully this abstraction will help to isolate vendor drivers from
mdev API changes in the future. I can certainly roll this patch into
the original to maintain bisectability. I want to get these changes in
for rc3, will a pull request for the i915 changes be sent this week?
Thanks for spotting and fixing this, Stephen. Thanks,
Alex
> > I applied this merge fix patch:
> >
> > From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> > Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 10:38:48 +1100
> > Subject: [PATCH] vfio-mdev: fixup for "Make mdev_device private and abstract interfaces"
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> > index c24b665e007b..faaae07ae487 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> > @@ -508,7 +508,7 @@ static int intel_vgpu_open(struct mdev_device *mdev)
> > return ret;
> >
> > undo_group:
> > - vfio_unregister_notifier(&mdev->dev, VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY,
> > + vfio_unregister_notifier(mdev_dev(mdev), VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY,
> > &vgpu->vdev.group_notifier);
> >
> > undo_iommu:
> > --
> > 2.10.2
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Stephen Rothwell
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-03 10:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sVtzQ-4gf-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1549531 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 2017.01.02 21:48:57 -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > > Alex, I liked to have kvmgt related mdev interface change be merged through > > vfio tree, but wasn't awared one of Jike's fix had conflict. Could you apply > > below fix in your tree? I think in general for possible interface change in > > future we still need a pull request for i915 to resolve dependence earlier. > > Hi Zhenyu, > > Hopefully this abstraction will help to isolate vendor drivers from > mdev API changes in the future. I can certainly roll this patch into > the original to maintain bisectability. I want to get these changes in > for rc3, will a pull request for the i915 changes be sent this week? Send to Jani who is managing i915 fixes pull. -- Open Source Technology Center, Intel ltd. $gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 4D781827
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-03 14:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: build failure after merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree |
| Message-ID | <sVxk6-6WU-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1549640 |
On Tue, 03 Jan 2017, Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On 2017.01.02 21:48:57 -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: >> > Alex, I liked to have kvmgt related mdev interface change be merged through >> > vfio tree, but wasn't awared one of Jike's fix had conflict. Could you apply >> > below fix in your tree? I think in general for possible interface change in >> > future we still need a pull request for i915 to resolve dependence earlier. >> >> Hi Zhenyu, >> >> Hopefully this abstraction will help to isolate vendor drivers from >> mdev API changes in the future. I can certainly roll this patch into >> the original to maintain bisectability. I want to get these changes in >> for rc3, will a pull request for the i915 changes be sent this week? > > Send to Jani who is managing i915 fixes pull. Send what to me? I've pushed fixes to drm-intel-fixes today for testing, and expect to send a pull request to Dave early Thursday. If there's a conflict, it can usually be solved while merging, like Stephen has done. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-03 21:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: build failure after merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree |
| Message-ID | <sVE2e-37A-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1549756 |
On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 15:25:24 +0200 Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> wrote: > On Tue, 03 Jan 2017, Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On 2017.01.02 21:48:57 -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > >> > Alex, I liked to have kvmgt related mdev interface change be merged through > >> > vfio tree, but wasn't awared one of Jike's fix had conflict. Could you apply > >> > below fix in your tree? I think in general for possible interface change in > >> > future we still need a pull request for i915 to resolve dependence earlier. > >> > >> Hi Zhenyu, > >> > >> Hopefully this abstraction will help to isolate vendor drivers from > >> mdev API changes in the future. I can certainly roll this patch into > >> the original to maintain bisectability. I want to get these changes in > >> for rc3, will a pull request for the i915 changes be sent this week? > > > > Send to Jani who is managing i915 fixes pull. > > Send what to me? I've pushed fixes to drm-intel-fixes today for testing, > and expect to send a pull request to Dave early Thursday. If there's a > conflict, it can usually be solved while merging, like Stephen has done. Unless there's some preference otherwise, I was only asking if the i915 changes were queued for rc3 such that I could trail behind them and fixup the mdev API change without relying on it getting caught in the merge. If we're happy to do it at merge time, I won't worry about it. Thanks, Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-04 10:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: build failure after merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree |
| Message-ID | <sVPK1-2AQ-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1550157 |
On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 01:37:17PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 15:25:24 +0200 > Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, 03 Jan 2017, Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > On 2017.01.02 21:48:57 -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > > >> > Alex, I liked to have kvmgt related mdev interface change be merged through > > >> > vfio tree, but wasn't awared one of Jike's fix had conflict. Could you apply > > >> > below fix in your tree? I think in general for possible interface change in > > >> > future we still need a pull request for i915 to resolve dependence earlier. > > >> > > >> Hi Zhenyu, > > >> > > >> Hopefully this abstraction will help to isolate vendor drivers from > > >> mdev API changes in the future. I can certainly roll this patch into > > >> the original to maintain bisectability. I want to get these changes in > > >> for rc3, will a pull request for the i915 changes be sent this week? > > > > > > Send to Jani who is managing i915 fixes pull. > > > > Send what to me? I've pushed fixes to drm-intel-fixes today for testing, > > and expect to send a pull request to Dave early Thursday. If there's a > > conflict, it can usually be solved while merging, like Stephen has done. > > Unless there's some preference otherwise, I was only asking if the i915 > changes were queued for rc3 such that I could trail behind them and > fixup the mdev API change without relying on it getting caught in the > merge. If we're happy to do it at merge time, I won't worry about it. Dave Airlie is still on vacation, so I expect drm fixes pull request to get a bit delayed. I think adding a warning when sending each respective pull to Linus about this is the best approach, to avoid stalling mdev fixes. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web