On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 01:41:23PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 01:28:05PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > > > > Cc: Greg > > > > On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 04:44:54PM +0000, alexander.levin@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > >> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 01:08:05PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > >> >On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 02:45:43AM +0000, alexander.levin@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > >> >> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >> >> > > >> >> [ Upstream commit 1be4d3793d5a93daddcd9be657c429b38ad750a3 ] > > >> >> > > >> >> The watermark should never exceed the FIFO size, so we need to > > >> >> check against the current FIFO size instead of the theoretical > > >> >> maximum when we clamp the level 0 watermark. > > >> >> > > >> >> Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >> >> Link: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__patchwork.freedesktop.org_patch_msgid_1480354637-2D14209-2D4-2Dgit-2Dsend-2Demail-2Dville.syrjala-40linux.intel.com&d=DwIDAw&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=bUtaaC9mlBij4OjEG_D-KPul_335azYzfC4Rjgomobo&m=iuPtUar-VEGbH1jmVH_UTr4C02X8fmjHUfNYix-Yc0Y&s=ha_F0zP3A1Aztp5S5e6_bqdhiuuPXhn0dRWQ58vv3Is&e= > > >> >> Reviewed-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >> >> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > >> > > > >> >Why are these patches being proposed for stable? They're not straight up > > >> >fixes for known issues, and there's always a chance that something will > > >> >break. Who is doing the qa on this? > > >> > > >> Hi Ville, > > >> > > >> They were selected automatically as part of a new process we're trying > > >> out. If you disagree with the selection I'd be happy to drop it. > > > > > > How does that automatic process decide that a patch should be backported? > > > > > > drm and i915 are very fast moving targets so unintended side effects from > > > backported patches is a real possibility. So I would recommend against > > > backporting anything that isn't fixing a real issue affecting users. We > > > do try to add the cc:stable to such patches. > > > > Agreed. > > > > First, I think an automatic backport process is against the stable > > kernel rules (e.g. "It must fix a real bug that bothers people"). > > It's finding lots of fixes that did bother people enough to submit a fix > for. > > > Second, we can't and won't take any responsibility for backports we > > didn't indicate with Cc: stable, a Fixes: tag, or a specific backport > > request. > > Ok, you all are already totally messing with my normal stable workflow, > so might as well just trust you all completely. So let's just only take > patches that you all do send me in the normal way. It's easy for Sasha > to filter out the drm/i915 patches from his results. > > Is that ok? > > > If you think there's a commit that should be backported and is known to > > fix a user visible issue (as per the stable rules!), please check with > > us first. > > Um, that is what he was doing with the cc: of you all on the patch > itself that started this whole conversation... And what were the user visible issues fixed by those backports? We can't judge the risk/benefit ratio of a backport without knowing what is supposedly being fixed. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
