On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 2:29 PM Jason Gunthorpe <j...@mellanox.com> wrote: > > [urk, html email.. forgive the mess] > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 04:59:39PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > > > VMware had some mm helpers go in via my tree (looking back I'm > > not sure Thomas really secured enough acks on these, but I'm > > I saw those patches, honestly I couldn't entirely understand what > problem they were trying to address.. > > > going with it for now until I get push back). They conflicted > > with one of the mm cleanups in the hmm tree, I've pushed a > > patch to the top of my next to fix most of the fallout in my > > tree, and the resulting fixup is to pick the closure->ptefn > > hunk and apply something like in mm/memory.c > > Did I mess a notification from StephenR in linux-next? I was unwaware > of this conflict? > > The 'hmm' tree is something I ran to try and help workflow issues like > this, as it could be merged to DRM as a topic branch - maybe consider > this flow in future? > > Linus, do you have any advice on how best to handle sharing mm > patches? The hmm.git was mildly painful as it sits between quilt on > the -mm side and what seems like 'a world of interesting git things' > on the DRM side (but maybe I just don't know enough about DRM).
I think the approach in this merge window worked fairly well: - refactor/rework core mm stuff in (h)mm.git - handle all the gpu stuff in drm.git - make the clashes workable through some clever prep patches like we've done this time around I think Linus wants to be able to look through core mm stuff quite closely, so not a good idea if we deeply intertwin it with one of the biggest subsystems there is. And I don't think there will be a real conflict like this every merge window, this should be the exception. Worst case we have to stage some work 1 release cycle apart, i.e. merge mm stuff first, then drm 3 months later. Usually that's not going to slow things down noticeable given average merge latency for core mm features :-) -Daniel > > @@ -2201,7 +2162,7 @@ static int apply_to_page_range_wrapper(pte_t > > *pte, > > struct page_range_apply *pra = > > container_of(pter, typeof(*pra), pter); > > - return pra->fn(pte, NULL, addr, pra->data); > > + return pra->fn(pte, addr, pra->data); > > } > > I looked through this and it looks OK to me, thanks > > Jason -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
