Hi all,
After merging the drm-intel-fixes tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig) failed like this:
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c: In function 'intel_vgpu_open': drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c:511:32: error: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type 'struct mdev_device' vfio_unregister_notifier(&mdev->dev, VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY, ^
Caused by commit
99e3123e3d72 ("vfio-mdev: Make mdev_device private and abstract interfaces")
from the vfio-fixes tree interacting with commit
364fb6b789ff ("drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt: prevent double-release of vgpu")
from the drm-intel-fixes tree.
I applied this merge fix patch:
From: Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 10:38:48 +1100 Subject: [PATCH] vfio-mdev: fixup for "Make mdev_device private and abstract interfaces"
Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c index c24b665e007b..faaae07ae487 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c @@ -508,7 +508,7 @@ static int intel_vgpu_open(struct mdev_device *mdev) return ret;
undo_group: - vfio_unregister_notifier(&mdev->dev, VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY, + vfio_unregister_notifier(mdev_dev(mdev), VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY, &vgpu->vdev.group_notifier);
undo_iommu:
On 2017.01.03 10:42:39 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
After merging the drm-intel-fixes tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig) failed like this:
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c: In function 'intel_vgpu_open': drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c:511:32: error: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type 'struct mdev_device' vfio_unregister_notifier(&mdev->dev, VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY, ^
Caused by commit
99e3123e3d72 ("vfio-mdev: Make mdev_device private and abstract interfaces")
from the vfio-fixes tree interacting with commit
364fb6b789ff ("drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt: prevent double-release of vgpu")
from the drm-intel-fixes tree.
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.
Thanks.
I applied this merge fix patch:
From: Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 10:38:48 +1100 Subject: [PATCH] vfio-mdev: fixup for "Make mdev_device private and abstract interfaces"
Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c index c24b665e007b..faaae07ae487 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c @@ -508,7 +508,7 @@ static int intel_vgpu_open(struct mdev_device *mdev) return ret;
undo_group:
- vfio_unregister_notifier(&mdev->dev, VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY,
- vfio_unregister_notifier(mdev_dev(mdev), VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY, &vgpu->vdev.group_notifier);
undo_iommu:
2.10.2
-- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
Hi Zhenyu,
On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 10:59:29 +0800 Zhenyu Wang zhenyuw@linux.intel.com 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.
This only happens because I merge both trees (I think) ...
On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 10:59:29 +0800 Zhenyu Wang zhenyuw@linux.intel.com wrote:
On 2017.01.03 10:42:39 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
After merging the drm-intel-fixes tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig) failed like this:
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c: In function 'intel_vgpu_open': drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c:511:32: error: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type 'struct mdev_device' vfio_unregister_notifier(&mdev->dev, VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY, ^
Caused by commit
99e3123e3d72 ("vfio-mdev: Make mdev_device private and abstract interfaces")
from the vfio-fixes tree interacting with commit
364fb6b789ff ("drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt: prevent double-release of vgpu")
from the drm-intel-fixes tree.
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? Thanks for spotting and fixing this, Stephen. Thanks,
Alex
I applied this merge fix patch:
From: Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 10:38:48 +1100 Subject: [PATCH] vfio-mdev: fixup for "Make mdev_device private and abstract interfaces"
Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c index c24b665e007b..faaae07ae487 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c @@ -508,7 +508,7 @@ static int intel_vgpu_open(struct mdev_device *mdev) return ret;
undo_group:
- vfio_unregister_notifier(&mdev->dev, VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY,
- vfio_unregister_notifier(mdev_dev(mdev), VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY, &vgpu->vdev.group_notifier);
undo_iommu:
2.10.2
-- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
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.
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.
BR, Jani.
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. Thanks,
Alex
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
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
-
Alex Williamson -
Daniel Vetter -
Jani Nikula -
Stephen Rothwell -
Zhenyu Wang