On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 01:45:38PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2017, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> 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)")
> > 3fc03069bc6e ("drm/i915: make context status notifier head be per engine")
> > 2e8f9d322948 ("drm/i915: Restore engine->submit_request before unwedging")
>
> Update:
>
> e2a2aa36a509 ("drm/i915: Check we have an wake device before flushing GTT writes")
Not worth it. The WARN is disabled in v4.11 so nobody will notice.
> 450362d3fe86 ("drm/i915/execlists: Wrap tail pointer after reset tweaking")
Done.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
