lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Oct]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] drm/ssd130x: Fix possible uninitialized usage of crtc_state variable
On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 02:00:06PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
>
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 12:53 PM Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 12:27:05PM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> > > Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> writes:
> > > >> >> Pushed to drm-misc (drm-misc-next). Thanks!
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Looks like you introduced an unintended
> > > >> >
> > > >> > (cherry picked from commit 9e4db199e66d427c50458f4d72734cc4f0b92948)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ?
> > > >>
> > > >> No, that's intended. It's added by the `dim cherry-pick` command, since I
> > > >> had to cherry-pick to drm-misc-next-fixes the commit that was already in
> > > >> the drm-misc-next branch.
> > > >>
> > > >> You will find that message in many drm commits, i.e:
> > > >>
> > > >> $ git log --oneline --grep="(cherry picked from commit" drivers/gpu/drm/ | wc -l
> > > >> 1708
> > > >
> > > > Ah, so that's why it's (way too) common to have merge conflicts between
> > > > the fixes and non-fixes drm branches :-(
>
> > That's also not as bad as Geert put it: merging two branches with the
> > exact same commit applied won't create conflict. If the two commits
> > aren't exactly the same then we can indeed create conflicts, but that
> > would have been the case anyway with or without the "double-commits"
>
> Oh it is, as soon as one branch receives more commits that make changes
> to the same location. Which is fairly common, too, to the point
> that I am surprised when merging a drm for-next branch does not trigger
> a conflict...
>
> Cfr. the conflict I had to resolve this morning between commit
> 64ffd2f1d00c6235 ("drm/amd: Disable ASPM for VI w/ all Intel systems")
> already upstream, and commits e5f52a84bf0a8170 ("drm/amd: Disable ASPM
> for VI w/ all Intel systems") and follow-up 2757a848cb0f1848
> ("drm/amd: Explicitly disable ASPM when dynamic switching disabled")
> in drm/drm-next.

I probably don't get what you're saying, sorry, but those two commits
would have conflicted anyway when merging the two branches, with or
without the cherry-pick.

Maxime
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-10-31 14:53    [W:0.026 / U:1.340 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site