On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Ilija Hadzic <ihadzic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> The actual fix is implemented in patch #6; preceding >>> 5 patches are necessary prerequisites. >> >> >> Hm, I don't really see why patches 1,2&4 are required. If we reorder them >> to the end of the series as follow-up cleanups then we'd only need to >> backport 3 patches. Which is imo reasonable. > > > 1 and 2 could indeed be left out, but the end-result will look really ugly > (e.g., x and y restoration will come from save_set.x and save_set.y, while > frame buffer restoration will come from old_fb (and IMO, it's always better > to first cleanup the code that one is about to touch and then make > functional changes). > > Patch 4, however, is required because of saving and restoration of 'enabled' > flag, but it could be split in two: the required part that restores the > enabled flag that restores only the the 'enabled' flag and the cleanup part > that eliminates unecessary restoration of hwmode field Oh right, I've forgotten that between the review and writing the mail ;-) I guess we could try to bend the stable rules a bit and just submit all 6. It's a regression fix after all, and at least personally I prefer the most minimal backports to avoid diverging between upstream and stable kernel branches. But I guess that's Dave's call to make. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
