Den 01.12.2022 13.12, skrev Greg KH: > On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 11:00:44AM +0100, Noralf Trønnes wrote: >> >> >> Den 01.12.2022 06.55, skrev Greg KH: >>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 08:26:48PM +0100, Noralf Trønnes via B4 Submission Endpoint wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I have started to look at igt for testing and want to use CRC tests. To >>>> implement support for this I need to move away from the simple kms >>>> helper. >>>> >>>> When looking around for examples I came across Thomas' nice shadow >>>> helper and thought, yes this is perfect for drm/gud. So I'll switch to >>>> that before I move away from the simple kms helper. >>>> >>>> The async framebuffer flushing code path now uses a shadow buffer and >>>> doesn't touch the framebuffer when it shouldn't. I have also taken the >>>> opportunity to inline the synchronous flush code path and make this the >>>> default flushing stategy. >>>> >>>> Noralf. >>>> >>>> Cc: Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Cc: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> >>>> Cc: dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> Signed-off-by: Noralf Trønnes <noralf@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> Changes in v2: >>>> - Drop patch (Thomas): >>>> drm/gem: shadow_fb_access: Prepare imported buffers for CPU access >>>> - Use src as variable name for iosys_map (Thomas) >>>> - Prepare imported buffer for CPU access in the driver (Thomas) >>>> - New patch: make sync flushing the default (Thomas) >>>> - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221122-gud-shadow-plane-v1-0-9de3afa3383e@xxxxxxxxxxx >>> >>> <formletter> >>> >>> This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the >>> stable kernel tree. Please read: >>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html >>> for how to do this properly. >>> >>> </formletter> >> >> Care to elaborate? >> Is it because stable got the whole patchset and not just the one fix >> patch that cc'ed stable? > > That is what triggered this, yes. > >> This patchset was sent using the b4 tool and I can't control this >> aspect. Everyone mentioned in the patches gets the whole set. > > Fair enough, but watch out, bots will report this as being a problem as > they can't always read through all patches in a series to notice this... > Konstantin, Can you add a rule in b4 to exclude stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (stable@xxxxxxxxxx as well?) from getting the whole patchset? Noralf.
