[PULL] drm-intel-gt-next

[Joonas Lahtinen]

(+ Jonathan)

Quoting Dave Airlie (2024-02-16 04:58:03)
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 at 20:06, Tvrtko Ursulin
> <tvrtko.ursulin at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Dave, Daniel,
> >
> > First pull request for 6.9 with probably one more coming in one to two
> > weeks.
> >
> > Nothing to interesting in this one, mostly a sprinkle of small fixes in
> > GuC, HuC, Perf/OA, a tiny bit of prep work for future platforms and some
> > code cleanups.
> >
> > One new uapi in the form of a GuC submission version query which Mesa
> > wants for implementing Vulkan async compute queues.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Tvrtko
> >
> > drm-intel-gt-next-2024-02-15:
> > UAPI Changes:
> >
> > - Add GuC submission interface version query (Tvrtko Ursulin)
> >
> > Driver Changes:
> >
> > Fixes/improvements/new stuff:
> >
> > - Atomically invalidate userptr on mmu-notifier (Jonathan Cavitt)
> 
> I've pulled this, but the above patch is triggering my this seems
> wrong spider sense.
> 
> This and probably the preceeding patch that this references seem to
> move i915 to a long term pinning of userptr in memory with what I can
> see no accounting, and away from what the desired behaviour for
> drivers should be.

I asked Thomas to take a more detailed look. Jonathan, Thomas really should
have been Cc'd in the original patch as the patch was explicitly referred
in the text even.

> It also feels like the authorship on this might be lies which also worries me.

Fear not. This can probably be blamed on the i915 maintainers.

When we have an internal patch which has many revisions and is then
essentially rewritten for upstreaming, we specifically asked NOT to keep
the "From:" line intact, but instead swap in person who rewrote the patch[1].

To document credits/involvement of the original author we've recommended
to keep the Signed-off-by line however. "Co-developed-by" does not really
express the situation correctly. "Based on patch by" style pure textual
credit reference was also discussed but is hard to grep.

Discussed with Sima who suggested if we should consider something like
"Original-patch-by:" tag to better express this situation?

Regards, Joonas

[1] If the "From: " line is not updated, it sometimes leads to
situation where you can see a patch with "From:" pointing to you, that
doesn't contain a single unmodified line anymore.

> 
> Dave.