On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 12:48:04PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 06:38:44AM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 09:58:43AM -0500, Sean Paul wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 03:43:56PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > > On 2018-02-14 03:08 PM, Sean Paul wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:26:35AM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > > > > >> Op 14-02-18 om 09:46 schreef Lukas Wunner: > > > > >>> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:38:28AM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote: > > > > >>>> Fix a deadlock on hybrid graphics laptops that's been present since 2013: > > > > >>> This series has been reviewed, consent has been expressed by the most > > > > >>> interested parties, patch [1/5] which touches files outside drivers/gpu > > > > >>> has been acked and I've just out a v2 addressing the only objection > > > > >>> raised. My plan is thus to wait another two days for comments and, > > > > >>> barring further objections, push to drm-misc this weekend. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> However I'm struggling with the decision whether to push to next or > > > > >>> fixes. The series is marked for stable, however the number of > > > > >>> affected machines is limited and for an issue that's been present > > > > >>> for 5 years it probably doesn't matter if it soaks another two months > > > > >>> in linux-next befor it gets backported. Hence I tend to err on the > > > > >>> side of caution and push to next, however a case could be made that > > > > >>> fixes is more appropriate. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I'm lacking experience making such decisions and would be interested > > > > >>> to learn how you'd handle this. > > > > >> > > > > >> I would say fixes, it doesn't look particularly scary. :) > > > > > > > > > > Agreed. If it's good enough for stable, it's good enough for -fixes! > > > > > > > > It's not that simple, is it? Fast-tracking patches (some of which appear > > > > to be untested) to stable without an immediate cause for urgency seems > > > > risky to me. > > > > > > /me should be more careful what he says > > > > > > Given where we are in the release cycle, it's barely a fast track. > > > If these go in -fixes, they'll get in -rc2 and will have plenty of > > > time to bake. If we were at rc5, it might be a different story. > > > > The patches are marked for stable though, so if they go in through > > drm-misc-fixes, they may appear in stable kernels before 4.16-final > > is out. Greg picks up patches once they're in Linus' tree, though > > often with a delay of a few days or weeks. If they go in through > > drm-misc-next, they're guaranteed not to appear in *any* release > > before 4.16-final is out. > > > > This allows for differentiation between no-brainer stable fixes that > > can be sent immediately and scarier, but similarly important stable > > fixes that should soak for a while. I'm not sure which category > > this series belongs to, though it's true what Maarten says, it's > > not *that* grave a change. > > If you're this concerned about them, then pls do _not_ put cc: stable on > the patches. Instead get them merged through -fixes (or maybe even -next), > and once they're sufficiently tested, send a mail to stable@ asking for > ane explicit backport. I'm not concerned about them, but would have erred on the side of caution. However consensus seems to have been that they're sufficiently unscary to push to -fixes. Do you disagree with that decision, if so, why? Can we amend the dim docs to codify guidelines whether to push to -fixes or -next? I allowed 1 week for comments, now you're returning from vacation and seem to be unhappy, was 1 week too short? Thanks, Lukas _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
