Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_vma.c

between commit:

  52791eeec1d9 ("dma-buf: rename reservation_object to dma_resv")

from the drm tree and commit:

  cd2a4eaf8c79 ("drm/i915: Report resv_obj allocation failure")

from the drm-intel tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_vma.c
index 2645f4e850c2,252edef6c59e..000000000000

--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_vma.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_vma.c

@@@ -926,14 -906,22 +906,22 @@@ int i915_vma_move_to_active(struct i915
  	if (unlikely(err))
  		return err;
  
- 	obj->write_domain = 0;
  	if (flags & EXEC_OBJECT_WRITE) {
- 		obj->write_domain = I915_GEM_DOMAIN_RENDER;
- 
- 		if (intel_fb_obj_invalidate(obj, ORIGIN_CS))
- 			__i915_active_request_set(&obj->frontbuffer_write, rq);
+ 		if (intel_frontbuffer_invalidate(obj->frontbuffer, ORIGIN_CS))
+ 			i915_active_ref(&obj->frontbuffer->write,
+ 					rq->timeline,
+ 					rq);
  
 -		reservation_object_add_excl_fence(vma->resv, &rq->fence);
++		dma_resv_add_excl_fence(vma->resv, &rq->fence);
+ 		obj->write_domain = I915_GEM_DOMAIN_RENDER;
  		obj->read_domains = 0;
+ 	} else {
 -		err = reservation_object_reserve_shared(vma->resv, 1);
++		err = dma_resv_reserve_shared(vma->resv, 1);
+ 		if (unlikely(err))
+ 			return err;
+ 
 -		reservation_object_add_shared_fence(vma->resv, &rq->fence);
++		dma_resv_add_shared_fence(vma->resv, &rq->fence);
+ 		obj->write_domain = 0;
  	}
  	obj->read_domains |= I915_GEM_GPU_DOMAINS;
  	obj->mm.dirty = true;