Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: build failure after merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree

[Daniel Vetter]

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@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 03 Jan 2017, Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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