[PATCH] drm/i915/ring_submission: Fix timeline left held on VMA alloc error

[Janusz Krzysztofik]

On Thursday, 12 June 2025 13:30:42 CEST Andi Shyti wrote:
> Hi Janusz,
> 
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 11:45:46AM +0200, Janusz Krzysztofik wrote:
> > On Thursday, 12 June 2025 11:35:31 CEST Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > On Thu, 12 Jun 2025, Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, 11 June 2025 22:54:40 CEST Andi Shyti wrote:
> > > >> Hi Nitin,
> > > >> 
> > > >> On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 03:45:30PM +0000, Gote, Nitin R wrote:
> > > >> > [...]
> > > >> > > Subject: [PATCH] drm/i915/ring_submission: Fix timeline left held on VMA alloc
> > > >> > > error
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > 
> > > >> > Generally, it's preferred to use "drm/i915/gt:" file path over "drm/i915/ring_submission:"  file name in the commit title.
> > > >> 
> > > >> good observation, I missed it. I agree with Nitin on this, it can
> > > >> be fixed before merging.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure.  I found no single word on the *subsystem* component of the 
> > > > canonical patch format subject line (or commit message) expected to reflect 
> > > > any directory structure in case of DRM.
> > > 
> > > It's not about the directory structure, though, but rather about
> > > (admittedly unwritten) conventions. Usually about driver components,
> > > features or platforms.
> > > 
> > > See:
> > > 
> > > $ git log --since={5years} --no-merges --pretty=%s -- "<PATH>" | sed 's/:.*//' | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn
> > > 
> > > Where "<PATH>" is drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_ring_submission.c or
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt.
> > > 
> > > "ring" or "submission" is just not there in the prefix, at all.
> > 
> > I see.  Is there a convention for designating old, pre-execlists *platforms* 
> > as affected subsystem / area?  Or is describing it in the summary phrase of 
> > the commit message the only way?
> 
> it's an unwritten rule and my feeling is that these tings take
> their own track without anyone deciding it officially.
> 
> Indeed every community has its own way of doing it. As you know
> already, in i915 we have always used:
> 
> drm/i915:
> drm/i915/gt:
> drm/i915/gem:
> drm/i915/gt/guc: (or drm/i915/guc:)
> drm/i915/display:
> ...

I find this convention as more oriented on designating an area of 
responsibility rather than a component / feature / platform that is affected / 
fixed.  My feeling is that it should rather be the latter.

Anyway, in this particular case I propose to follow the current convention and 
add the word 'legacy' to the summary phrase, as I suggested before, unless you 
are able to propose something better.  We may discuss the convention doubts 
independently.

Thanks,
Janusz

> 
> pointing to the directory rather than the topic or the file.
> 
> In my opinion using "ring_submission:" is not wrong and it makes
> sense, but it's out of the ordinary and this would be the only
> patch doing it.
> 
> That's why this title is a little odd, unless we all agree to
> change and set a convention.
> 
> Thanks,
> Andi
>