On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 03:11:31PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 10:27:29 -0800 John Harrison <john.c.harri...@intel.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 1/31/2023 04:44, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 01:03:05PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Today's linux-next merge of the usb tree got a conflict in:
> > >>
> > >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c
> > >>
> > >> between commit:
> > >>
> > >> 5bc4b43d5c6c ("drm/i915: Fix up locking around dumping requests
> > >> lists")
> > >>
> > >> from the drm-intel-fixes tree and commit:
> > >>
> > >> 4d70c74659d9 ("i915: Move list_count() to list.h as
> > >> list_count_nodes() for broader use")
> > >>
> > >> from the usb tree.
> > >>
> > >> I fixed it up (the former removed the code changed by the latter)
> > > Hmm... Currently I see that
> > > 20230127002842.3169194-4-john.c.harri...@intel.com
> > > moves the code to the
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c.
> > >
> > > Is there any new series beside the above mentioned that touches that file
> > > and
> > > actually _removes_ that code?
> > As long as the removal is limited to list_count/list_count_nodes,
> > that's fine. I only moved it from one file to another because the one
> > and only function that was using it was being moved to the other
> > file. If someone else has found a use for the same and wants to move
> > it to a more common place then great. I assume there was no conflict
> > happening in the i915 specific code.
>
> I have added this fix up patch to linux-next today (more or less - this
> is a hand hacked version, but you get the idea):
>
> From: Stephen Rothwell <s...@canb.auug.org.au>
> Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2023 13:13:01 +1100
> Subject: [PATCH] i915: fix up for "drm/i915: Fix up locking around dumping
> requests lists"
>
> interacting with "i915: Move list_count() to list.h as list_count_nodes() for
> broader use"
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <s...@canb.auug.org.au>
> ---
> .../gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c | 15 +------------
> 1 file changed, 2 insertion(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
> index 3c573d41d404..e919d41a48d9 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
> @@ -4150,17 +4150,6 @@ void intel_execlists_show_requests(struct
> intel_engine_cs *engine,
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sched_engine->lock, flags);
> }
>
> -static unsigned long list_count(struct list_head *list)
> -{
> - struct list_head *pos;
> - unsigned long count = 0;
> -
> - list_for_each(pos, list)
> - count++;
> -
> - return count;
> -}
> -
> void intel_execlists_dump_active_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
> struct i915_request *hung_rq,
> struct drm_printer *m)
> @@ -4172,7 +4161,7 @@ void intel_execlists_dump_active_requests(struct
> intel_engine_cs *engine,
> intel_engine_dump_active_requests(&engine->sched_engine->requests,
> hung_rq, m);
>
> - drm_printf(m, "\tOn hold?: %lu\n",
> - list_count(&engine->sched_engine->hold));
> + drm_printf(m, "\tOn hold?: %zu\n",
> + list_count_nodes(&engine->sched_engine->hold));
something awkward here.
The resolution on linux-next should align with the resolution on drm-tip
where we have the list_count still there as we preferred the version
on drm-intel-gt-next as the resolution of the conflict instead of the
fixes one.
>
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&engine->sched_engine->lock, flags);
> }
> --
> 2.35.1
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
