[PULL] drm-intel-gt-next

[Joonas Lahtinen]

Quoting Joonas Lahtinen (2024-02-16 11:41:44)
> (+ 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].

Just to state the obvious for the public record:

This should never be done lightly or without reaching out to the
original author. This should only be for the exceptional cases where the
patch has significantly changed.

This was just the explanation why it's not an immediate red flag to see
such a patch. Based on the discussion around the topic we should be more
explicit if such a case has happened or if there simply has been an error
in the patch handling.

So we'll work on clarifying the instructions here.

Regards, Joonas

> 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.