On 2018.03.27 16:42:28 +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> Quoting Zhenyu Wang (2018-03-27 11:39:42)
> >
> > Hi, Joonas
> >
> > Here's this week's gvt-next-fixes queued for 4.17. One notable change
> > is to revert previous workaround for gvt context preemption, now it
> > has full support for preemption now.
>
> I've pulled the patches, but this revert sounds fishy. Is it something
> that should have been done together with a commit in a batch introduced
> to 4.17? To me, this sounds much like a feature patch, "enable
> pre-emption on GVT context" is even written in the tag.
>
> So I'm inclined to drop this patch from -fixes pull.
>
The dependent fix has already been queued for 4.17 as commit 702791f7f204
("drm/i915: add schedule out notification of preempted but completed request"),
and before we could revert previous workaround, we had a regression issue which
was later resolved, so this revert was delayed for regression verification and
validation. And now it has passed our full testing, so I consider to push it for
4.17 instead of still keeping previous workaround...
> Is there some specific reason why you don't use Fixes: tagging to
> make it easier to track which patches the fixes apply to, if there are
> some?
yeah, sorry, that's missed. Will fix that against workaround commit and re-send
this pull. Will that be fine for you?
thanks
--
Open Source Technology Center, Intel ltd.
$gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 4D781827
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
