-next trees and my time this cycle

[Lucas Stach]

Am Freitag, den 11.12.2015, 17:36 +0000 schrieb Russell King - ARM
Linux:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 05:15:40PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 10:02:45AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 04:58:08PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > > > I've seen etnaviv, rockchip(?), vc4 gpu api, can I get plans
> > > > for if
> > > > people would like these in now, also anything I've missed on
> > > > the list.
> > > 
> > > I would definitely like to see etnaviv make it in for the next
> > > merge
> > > window, but that depends on it being reviewed, and I haven't seen
> > > anything from DRM people yet.
> > > 
> > > I've queued up some of the TDA998x and Armada DRM changes (3 and
> > > 5
> > > patches respectively) which I'll send you shortly if they haven't
> > > already been merged via some other route.
> > 
> > I did look at etnaviv on v1, if all the things I've raised there
> > have been
> > addressed (and it looks like, but no time for detailed checking):
> 
> I did keep a list of your points, and made sure that we'd addressed
> them all.  We went a little further towards the end with your 'flags'
> suggestion for several of the ioctls, which I think was a very good
> point you raised.
> 
> > Acked-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> > For detailed review it would be best to just get some of the new
> > big
> > submissions to cross review I think. But personally I'd be ok with
> > etnaviv going in as is, trusting that you've done plenty of review
> > within your group.
> 
> We have had a certain amount of review within our group - Christian
> reviewed many of my early patches, and I've reviewed Lucas' patches.
> There could have been more review.
> 
> I was rather hoping for some review of the changes since your last
> comments, especially with the locking changes.  I'm fairly confident
> with the locking changes (which were particularly hairy) as I've been
> running them for some time now with lockdep enabled.  The
> particularly
> "hairy" bit was in etnaviv_gem_get_iova().
> 
While I didn't review all of your patches in-depth, I think we've got
the locking changes pretty well covered. The review I did there wasn't
just some "I think this looks okay", but me taking the time to go
through all paths I could envision and validating that your locking
scheme works for them.

Regards,
Lucas