linux-next: build failure after merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree
diff mbox

Message ID 20170103104239.67dd95ba@canb.auug.org.au
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Stephen Rothwell Jan. 2, 2017, 11:42 p.m. UTC
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(-)

Comments

Zhenyu Wang Jan. 3, 2017, 2:59 a.m. UTC | #1
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
Stephen Rothwell Jan. 3, 2017, 4:07 a.m. UTC | #2
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) ...
Alex Williamson Jan. 3, 2017, 4:48 a.m. UTC | #3
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  
>
Zhenyu Wang Jan. 3, 2017, 9:23 a.m. UTC | #4
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.
Jani Nikula Jan. 3, 2017, 1:25 p.m. UTC | #5
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.
Alex Williamson Jan. 3, 2017, 8:37 p.m. UTC | #6
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
Daniel Vetter Jan. 4, 2017, 9:07 a.m. UTC | #7
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

Patch
diff mbox

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: