> -----Original Message----- > From: Michel Dänzer [mailto:michel at daenzer.net] > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 12:06 PM > To: Koenig, Christian; Alex Deucher > Cc: Deucher, Alexander; Dave Airlie; amd-gfx list; Maling list - DRI developers > Subject: Re: [pull] amdgpu drm-fixes-4.14 > > On 13/10/17 10:19 AM, Christian König wrote: > > 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. > > Alex, are you planning to send a pull request for the revert? Let me > know if there's anything I can do to help. Yeah, I'll send it out shortly. Alex > > > -- > Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com > Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
