08:32 mlankhorst: tzimmermann, mripard: Should we revert [PATCH] drm/syncobj: Fix handle <-> fd ioctls with dirty stack before next pull?
08:36 tursulin: if you do revert that I was a few minutes late with an important fix, now in drm-misc-fixes.
08:54 mripard: mlankhorst: should we?
08:58 mlankhorst: A problem was created when 'struct drm_syncobj_handle' was updated to the new definition from the originally mentioned commit, and then the newly compiled code did not properly initialise the new field and left stack garbage on it. The newly compiled code started failing and the original commit was blamed as causing it, as it was working before the struct update.
09:05 mripard: mlankhorst: I'm confused, so if we revert, are we still left with a problem or not?
09:15 mlankhorst: mripard: basically old definition: struct { ...; }; worked. new definition: struct { ...; u64 point; } failed when recompiling because code never used memset, or set the new field to 0, to me it seems like a user bug, not a kernel bug. :)
09:15 mlankhorst: specifically when recompiling, because the struct size is passed to the ioctl as argument
09:24 dolphin: airlied, sima: drm-intel-fixes PR sent
09:40 dolphin: airlied, sima: some of the CI results for drm-intel-fixes are still in black hole, but the BAT was looking good