Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: Tree for Jul 25 [ call-trace: drm | drm-intel related? ]

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Sedat Dilek sedat.dilek@gmail.com wrote:

I have compared next-20130725 VS. next-20130726:

$ head -2313 next-20130725-VS-next-20130726.diff | grep ^+ | grep i915

•  drm/i915: Colocate all GT access routines in the same file
  

•  drm/i915: Use a private interface for register access within GT
  

•  drm/i915: Use the common register access functions for NOTRACE variants
  

•  drm/i915: Squash gen lookup through multiple indirections
  

inside GT access

•  drm/i915: Convert the register access tracepoint to be conditional
  

•  drm/i915: fix the racy object accounting
  

•  drm/i915: dvo_ch7xxx: fix vsync polarity setting
  

•  drm/i915: initialize gt_lock early with other spin locks
  

•  Revert "ACPI / video / i915: No ACPI backlight if firmware
  

expects Windows 8"

• drivers/gpu/drm/i915/Makefile | 2 +
• drivers/gpu/drm/i915/dvo_ch7xxx.c | 2 +-
• drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 836 +--
• drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c | 91 +-
• drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 292 +-
• drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 413 +-
• drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 411 +-
• drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 1347 ++---
• drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_trace.h | 16 +-
• drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 1065 ++--
• drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 36 +-
• drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 431 +-
• drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c | 595 +++

Any hints which of the commits could be culprit?

None, it's the vma offset manager stuff in drm-next.

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem.c index 3613b50..1f76572 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem.c @@ -666,7 +666,7 @@ int drm_gem_mmap(struct file *filp, struct vm_area_struct *vma) }

obj = container_of(node, struct drm_gem_object, vma_node); - ret = drm_gem_mmap_obj(obj, drm_vma_node_size(node), vma); + ret = drm_gem_mmap_obj(obj, drm_vma_node_size(node) << PAGE_SHIFT, vma);

mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);

That should fix stuff up again, David Herrmann is working on a real patch already.

Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch