Hi all,

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

  rust/kernel/drm/gem/mod.rs

between commit:

  917b10d90990 ("drm: rust: rename as_ref() to from_raw() for drm constructors")

from the drm-misc tree and commit:

  8802e1684378 ("rust: types: add Opaque::cast_from")

from the rust 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 rust/kernel/drm/gem/mod.rs
index a24c9a2fc201,6f914ae0a5aa..000000000000
--- a/rust/kernel/drm/gem/mod.rs
+++ b/rust/kernel/drm/gem/mod.rs
@@@ -124,12 -124,10 +124,10 @@@ impl<T: DriverObject> IntoGEMObject fo
          self.obj.get()
      }
  
 -    unsafe fn as_ref<'a>(self_ptr: *mut bindings::drm_gem_object) -> &'a Self {
 +    unsafe fn from_raw<'a>(self_ptr: *mut bindings::drm_gem_object) -> &'a Self {
-         let self_ptr: *mut Opaque<bindings::drm_gem_object> = self_ptr.cast();
- 
          // SAFETY: `obj` is guaranteed to be in an `Object<T>` via the safety contract of this
          // function
-         unsafe { &*crate::container_of!(self_ptr, Object<T>, obj) }
+         unsafe { &*crate::container_of!(Opaque::cast_from(self_ptr), Object<T>, obj) }
      }
  }
  

On Wed Jul 16, 2025 at 12:16 PM CEST, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the rust tree got a conflict in:
>
>   rust/kernel/drm/gem/mod.rs
>
> between commit:
>
>   917b10d90990 ("drm: rust: rename as_ref() to from_raw() for drm constructors")
>
> from the drm-misc tree and commit:
>
>   8802e1684378 ("rust: types: add Opaque::cast_from")
>
> from the rust 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.

Looks good to me, thanks!