Quoting Stephen Rothwell (2018-03-23 02:50:18)
> Hi all,
>
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 13:21:29 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <s...@canb.auug.org.au>
> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/scheduler.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > fa3dd623e559 ("drm/i915/gvt: keep oa config in shadow ctx")
> >
> > from Linus' tree and commit:
> >
> > b20c0d5ce104 ("drm/i915/gvt: Update PDPs after a vGPU mm object is
> > pinned.")
> >
> > from the drm-intel 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.
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for solving this, the resolution is correct.
You may want to replace Daniel, as the recipient here, with the current
i915 maintainers to get a faster feedback next time :)
<SNIP>
> This is now a conflict between the drm tree and Linus' tree.
>
My bad for not highlighting the merge conflict in my PR to Dave. He
probably did not notice, getting the resolution automatically from
drm-rerere, I'd guess. I've noted it in the ever improving draft of
things to remember with the PRs.
I'm very much currently flying based on what the previous PR authors
have remembered to tell me. But after 4.17, the cycle is complete and we
all "have been there, done that", and you can expect less of a turbulence.
(We'll probably have more magnificent documentation, too.)
Regards, Joonas
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> intel-...@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
