On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:39:31PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Of course our CI is open, so if someone is supremely bored and wants to > backport more stuff for drm/i915, they could do that. But atm it doesn't > happen, and then having to deal with the fallout is not really great (like > I said, we don't really have anyone dedicated, and I much prefer we > fix/improve upstream). Any reason you can't add the stable -rc tree to your CI system? > For the actual products we're shipping we have dedicated teams doing the > backports. The upstream stable releases essentially have no value for us > from a customer support pov (for drivers, I guess core stuff is an > entirely different matter), there's not a single serious customer or > bigger user using that. It only costs, by spamming us with mails and bug > reports for stuff we didn't even nominate :-) Any reason why you aren't sending those backported patches to the stable trees so that users of them can benefit from the work you are already doing for a limited number of "customers"? And if your customers are not using stable kernel releases, what are they using for their kernels? It sounds like you don't want to deal with the "automated" patches for the i915 drivers, so that's fine, we will blacklist them and ignore them and only deal with the patches you explicitly ask to be backported. As it seems like those are hard enough for you all to deal with, given the recent regression :) thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
