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.
