On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 07:03:47PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 06:40:43PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On 2019-09-03 6:23 p.m., Sasha Levin wrote:
> From: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> [ Upstream commit 89f23b6efef554766177bf51aa754bce14c3e7da ]
Hold your horses!
This commit and c4a32b266da7bb702e60381ca0c35eaddbc89a6c had to be
reverted, as they caused regressions. See commits
25ec429e86bb790e40387a550f0501d0ac55a47c &
92b0730eaf2d549fdfb10ecc8b71f34b9f472c12 .
This isn't bolstering confidence in how these patches are selected...
The patch _itself_ said to be backported to the stable trees from 4.2
and newer. Why wouldn't we be confident in doing this?
If the patch doesn't want to be backported, then do not add the cc:
stable line to it...
This patch was picked because it has a stable tag, which you presumably
saw as your Reviewed-by tag is in the patch. This is why it was
backported; it doesn't take AI to backport patches tagged for stable...
The revert of this patch, however:
1. Didn't have a stable tag.
2. Didn't have a "Fixes:" tag.
3. Didn't have the usual "the reverts commit ..." string added by git
when one does a revert.
Which is why we still kick patches for review, even though they had a
stable tag, just so people could take a look and confirm we're not
missing anything - like we did here.
I'm not sure what you expected me to do differently here.
--
Thanks,
Sasha
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
