On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 1:30 PM Vasily Khoruzhick anarsoul@gmail.com wrote:

On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 2:18 PM Mark Brown broonie@kernel.org wrote:

...

Hi all,

Hi Mark,

...

Today's linux-next merge of the drm tree got a conflict in:

drivers/gpu/drm/lima/lima_gem.c

between commit:

21670bd78a25001cf8e ("drm/lima: fix lima_gem_wait() return value")

from the drm-misc-fixes tree and commit:

52791eeec1d9f4a7e7f ("dma-buf: rename reservation_object to dma_resv")

from the drm 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.

Fix looks correct to me. Sorry for not testing my patch with linux-next, I'll make sure it at least compiles next time.

This is merge conflict, not compile fail, because linux-next and drm-misc-fixes are based on different code base, so drm-misc-fixes do not contain latest drm commits.

This conflict solve change is also OK for me.

Thanks, Qiang

...

diff --cc drivers/gpu/drm/lima/lima_gem.c index b609dc030d6ca,ff3d9acc24fcf..0000000000000 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/lima/lima_gem.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/lima/lima_gem.c @@@ -341,8 -341,8 +341,8 @@@ int lima_gem_wait(struct drm_file *file

    timeout = drm_timeout_abs_to_jiffies(timeout_ns);

•   ret = drm_gem_reservation_object_wait(file, handle, write, timeout);
  

•   ret = drm_gem_dma_resv_wait(file, handle, write, timeout);
  

•  if (ret == 0)
  

•  if (ret == -ETIME)
           ret = timeout ? -ETIMEDOUT : -EBUSY;
  
   return ret;