Re: linux-next: manual merge of the dmaengine tree with the dmaengine-fixes tree

[Dave Jiang]

On 12/28/2021 2:09 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 10:53 AM <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Today's linux-next merge of the dmaengine tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >    drivers/dma/idxd/submit.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >    8affd8a4b5ce3 ("dmaengine: idxd: fix missed completion on abort path")
> >
> > from the dmaengine-fixes tree and commit:
> >
> >    5d78abb6fbc97 ("dmaengine: idxd: rework descriptor free path on failure")
> >
> > from the dmaengine 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.
> >
> > diff --cc drivers/dma/idxd/submit.c
> > index 83452fbbb168b,569815a84e95b..0000000000000
> > --- a/drivers/dma/idxd/submit.c
> > +++ b/drivers/dma/idxd/submit.c
> > @@@ -134,20 -120,32 +125,43 @@@ static void llist_abort_desc(struct idx
> >          spin_unlock(&ie->list_lock);
> >
> >          if (found)
> > -               complete_desc(found, IDXD_COMPLETE_ABORT);
> > +               idxd_dma_complete_txd(found, IDXD_COMPLETE_ABORT, false);
> >   +
> >   +      /*
> > -        * complete_desc() will return desc to allocator and the desc can be
> > -        * acquired by a different process and the desc->list can be modified.
> > -        * Delete desc from list so the list trasversing does not get corrupted
> > -        * by the other process.
> > ++       * completing the descriptor will return desc to allocator and
> > ++       * the desc can be acquired by a different process and the
> > ++       * desc->list can be modified.  Delete desc from list so the
> > ++       * list trasversing does not get corrupted by the other process.
> traversing
>
> >   +       */
> >   +      list_for_each_entry_safe(d, t, &flist, list) {
> >   +              list_del_init(&d->list);
> > -               complete_desc(d, IDXD_COMPLETE_NORMAL);
> > ++              idxd_dma_complete_txd(d, IDXD_COMPLETE_NORMAL, false);
> Is "false" correct here?

Hi Geert, took a closer look today. I believe it should be 'true' here 
since this is a normal completion that needs to release the descriptors. 
Sorry about the previous incorrect response.



> >   +      }
> >    }
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
>                          Geert
>
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
>                                  -- Linus Torvalds