Am 12.10.2017 um 15:42 schrieb Michel Dänzer: > On 12/10/17 01:44 PM, Christian König wrote: >> Am 12.10.2017 um 13:00 schrieb Michel Dänzer: >> >>> Anyway, unless anyone knows which commits from amd-staging-drm-next are >>> needed to make 1d00402b4da2 stable in 4.14, the safe course of action >>> seems to be reverting it (and ac7afe6b3cf3, which depends on it)? >> The amdgpu_ttm_bind change should be fixed by "70a9c6b drm/amdgpu: fix >> placement flags in amdgpu_ttm_bind". > Indeed, that fixes it for me. > >> But I've assumed they went both into 4.14. > Unfortunately, it looks like only 1d00402b4da2 made it into 4.14. Alex, > please send a fixes pull for 4.14 with a backport of 70a9c6b. > > For the other issue, do we want to backport Nicolai's commits > 6b37d03280a4..318d85de9c20 or revert 6af0883ed977? > > Christian, can you check that there are no other fixes missing from 4.14? Not that I know of, and manually checking is nearly impossible since I don't know what Alex pushed to 4.14 and what not. Manually checking what went in and what not would take quite some time. > BTW, this raises an issue: Since we push both fixes and new development > work to the same internal branch, sometimes it isn't clear which changes > should go upstream via -fixes or -next. Any ideas for mitigating the > risk of missing an important fix? Well we would need to drop that amd-staging-* model and revert back to something amd-drm-next-*/amd-drm-fixes-* based. But that is not something we were able to sell to our internal teams so far. Christian.
