On Tue, 21 Mar 2017, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 04:23:19PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > I'm already scripting my fixes backports quite a bit, and frankly don't
>> > really manually backport anything that doesn't apply cleanly. I'm
>> > thinking of automating some "failed to backport" reporting to authors,
>> > not unlike the failed stable backport reports.
>> >
>> > This is a manual report that the following commits have been marked as
>> > Cc: stable or fixing something in v4.11-rc1, but failed to cherry-pick
>> > to drm-intel-fixes. Please see if they are worth backporting, and please
>> > do so if they are.
>> >
>> > Feedback about the idea of this reporting is also appreciated.
>>
>> Refreshed list as of today:
>>
>> bd784b7cc41a ("drm/i915: Avoid rcu_barrier() from reclaim paths (shrinker)")
>
> Done.
>
>> 3fc03069bc6e ("drm/i915: make context status notifier head be per engine")
> Done.
>
>> 2e8f9d322948 ("drm/i915: Restore engine->submit_request before unwedging")
>
> Don't care; I consider this is an debug-only feature. The expected
> response to a wedged machine by a user are curse words followed by a
> reboot.
Thanks, pushed the backports to drm-intel-fixes.
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
