Use new return type vm_fault_t for fault handler. For now, this is just documenting that the function returns a VM_FAULT value rather than an errno. Once all instances are converted, vm_fault_t will become a distinct type.
Reference id -> 1c8f422059ae ("mm: change return type to vm_fault_t")
Signed-off-by: Souptick Joarder jrdr.linux@gmail.com --- drivers/gpu/drm/qxl/qxl_ttm.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/qxl/qxl_ttm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/qxl/qxl_ttm.c index 59cd74c..0b482b1 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/qxl/qxl_ttm.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/qxl/qxl_ttm.c @@ -105,16 +105,16 @@ static void qxl_ttm_global_fini(struct qxl_device *qdev) static struct vm_operations_struct qxl_ttm_vm_ops; static const struct vm_operations_struct *ttm_vm_ops;
-static int qxl_ttm_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf) +static vm_fault_t qxl_ttm_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf) { struct ttm_buffer_object *bo; - int r; + vm_fault_t ret;
bo = (struct ttm_buffer_object *)vmf->vma->vm_private_data; if (bo == NULL) return VM_FAULT_NOPAGE; - r = ttm_vm_ops->fault(vmf); - return r; + ret = ttm_vm_ops->fault(vmf); + return ret; }
int qxl_mmap(struct file *filp, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 07:08:44PM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote:
Use new return type vm_fault_t for fault handler. For now, this is just documenting that the function returns a VM_FAULT value rather than an errno. Once all instances are converted, vm_fault_t will become a distinct type.
Reference id -> 1c8f422059ae ("mm: change return type to vm_fault_t")
Hmm, that commit isn't yet in drm-misc-next. Will drm-misc-next merge with 4.17-rcX soon?
cheers, Gerd
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 12:49:24PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 07:08:44PM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote:
Use new return type vm_fault_t for fault handler. For now, this is just documenting that the function returns a VM_FAULT value rather than an errno. Once all instances are converted, vm_fault_t will become a distinct type.
Reference id -> 1c8f422059ae ("mm: change return type to vm_fault_t")
Hmm, that commit isn't yet in drm-misc-next. Will drm-misc-next merge with 4.17-rcX soon?
For backmerge requests you need to cc/ping the drm-misc maintainers. Adding them. I think the hold-up also was that Dave was on vacations still. -Daniel
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 02:11:51PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 12:49:24PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 07:08:44PM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote:
Use new return type vm_fault_t for fault handler. For now, this is just documenting that the function returns a VM_FAULT value rather than an errno. Once all instances are converted, vm_fault_t will become a distinct type.
Reference id -> 1c8f422059ae ("mm: change return type to vm_fault_t")
Hmm, that commit isn't yet in drm-misc-next. Will drm-misc-next merge with 4.17-rcX soon?
For backmerge requests you need to cc/ping the drm-misc maintainers. Adding them. I think the hold-up also was that Dave was on vacations still.
Ah, ok.
So my expectation that a backmerge happens anyway after -rc1/2 is in line with reality, it is just to be delayed this time. I'll stay tuned ;)
cheers, Gerd
Hi Gerd /Daniel,
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Gerd Hoffmann kraxel@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 02:11:51PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 12:49:24PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 07:08:44PM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote:
Use new return type vm_fault_t for fault handler. For now, this is just documenting that the function returns a VM_FAULT value rather than an errno. Once all instances are converted, vm_fault_t will become a distinct type.
Reference id -> 1c8f422059ae ("mm: change return type to vm_fault_t")
Hmm, that commit isn't yet in drm-misc-next. Will drm-misc-next merge with 4.17-rcX soon?
For backmerge requests you need to cc/ping the drm-misc maintainers. Adding them. I think the hold-up also was that Dave was on vacations still.
Ah, ok.
So my expectation that a backmerge happens anyway after -rc1/2 is in line with reality, it is just to be delayed this time. I'll stay tuned ;)
Is this patch already merged in drm-misc-next tree ?
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Gerd Hoffmann kraxel@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
So my expectation that a backmerge happens anyway after -rc1/2 is in line with reality, it is just to be delayed this time. I'll stay tuned ;)
Is this patch already merged in drm-misc-next tree ?
Pushed now.
Thanks Gerd :)
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
-
Daniel Vetter -
Gerd Hoffmann -
Souptick Joarder