On 12/10/17 07:49 PM, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Christian König > <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> wrote: >> Am 12.10.2017 um 18:20 schrieb Michel Dänzer: >>> On 12/10/17 05:58 PM, Alex Deucher wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Dave, >>>> >>>> One memory management regression fix. >>>> >>>> The following changes since commit >>>> 545036a9944e9d6e50fed4ca03117147c880ff71: >>>> >>>> Merge tag 'drm-misc-fixes-2017-10-11' of >>>> git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm-misc into drm-fixes (2017-10-12 >>>> 10:38:09 +1000) >>>> >>>> are available in the git repository at: >>>> >>>> git://people.freedesktop.org/~agd5f/linux drm-fixes-4.14 >>>> >>>> for you to fetch changes up to 27b94b4f1386c3a8181f5a0277434a32e24e7dd7: >>>> >>>> drm/amdgpu: fix placement flags in amdgpu_ttm_bind (2017-10-12 >>>> 10:34:42 -0400) >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Christian König (1): >>>> drm/amdgpu: fix placement flags in amdgpu_ttm_bind >>> >>> Thanks Alex, but there's another piglit hang regression in 4.14, caused >>> by commit 6af0883ed977 "drm/amdgpu: discard commands of killed >>> processes", fixed by five commits 6b37d03280a4..318d85de9c20 in >>> amd-staging-drm-next. Either the latter need to be backported to 4.14, >>> or the former needs to be reverted from it. >> >> >> The revert is probably easier to handle at this point. >> >> So to answer your question from the other thread I vote for that. > > Nicolai's patches apply cleanly and I think they change about the same > amount of code and we don't have to worry about any problems down the > road when the revert gets merged into drm-next. That's basically why I asked which way to go. However, Monk just reported a potential regression in one of Nicolai's changes, so reverting seems safer for 4.14. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
