On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 09:46:41PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 07:24:15PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Hi Sasha, > > > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 07:05:47PM +0000, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > [This is an automated email] > > > > > > This commit has been processed because it contains a "Fixes:" tag, > > > fixing commit: d3862e44daa7 dma-buf/sw-sync: Fix locking around sync_timeline lists. > > > > > > The bot has tested the following trees: v5.2.8, v4.19.66, v4.14.138, v4.9.189. > > > > > > v5.2.8: Build OK! > > > v4.19.66: Build OK! > > > v4.14.138: Build OK! > > > v4.9.189: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies: > > > Unable to calculate > > > > > > > > > NOTE: The patch will not be queued to stable trees until it is upstream. > > > > > > How should we proceed with this patch? > > > > The backporting instruction has an explicit # v4.14+ in there, so failure > > to apply to older kernels is expected. > > > > Can you perhaps teach this trick to your script perhaps? Iirc we're using > > the official format even. > > Hey Daniel, > > The script knows how to read stable tags :) > > It tested out 4.9 because the commit also has a fixes tag pointing to > d3862e44daa7 ("dma-buf/sw-sync: Fix locking around sync_timeline > lists."), which was backported to 4.9. Ah makes sense, might be good to add a bit of output explaining that. > Should this not be backported to 4.9, even though the commit it fixes is > there? I guess it might actually be needed there. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel