[pull] amdgpu drm-fixes-4.14

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Am 13.10.2017 um 09:41 schrieb Michel Dänzer:
> 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.

I agree that reverting the original offending patch is probably the 
better approach.

Regards,
Christian.


[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux