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