Quoting Sultan Alsawaf (2020-04-20 18:42:16) > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 12:02:39PM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > > I think the the patch should be dropped for now before the issue is > > properly addressed. Either by backporting the mainline fixes or if > > those are too big and there indeed is a smaller alternative patch > > that is properly reviewed. But the above patch is not, at least yet. > > Why should a fix for a bona-fide issue be dropped due to political reasons? This > doesn't make sense to me. This just hurts miserable i915 users even more. If my > patch is going to be dropped, it should be replaced by a different fix at the > same time. There's no politics involved. It's all about doing the due diligence that we're fixing upstream bugs, and we're fixing them in a way that does not cause regressions to other users. Without being able to reproduce a bug against vanilla kernel, there's too high of a risk that the patch that was developed will only work on the downstream kernel it was developed for. That happens for the best of the developers, and that is exactly why the process is in place, to avoid human error. So no politics, just due diligence. If you could provide bug reproduction instructions by filing a bug, we can make forward progress in solving this issue. After assessing the severity of the bug and the amount of users involved, it will be prioritized accordingly. That is the most efficient way to get attention to a bug. > Also, the mainline fixes just *happen* to fix this deadlock by removing the > mutex lock from the path in question and creating multiple other bugs in the > process that had to be addressed with "Fixes:" commits. The regression potential > was too high to include those patches for a "stable" kernel, so I made this > patch which fixes the issue in the simplest way possible. The thing is that it may be that the patch fixes the exact issue you have at hand in the downstream kernel you are testing against. But in doing so it may as well break other usecases for other users of vanilla kernel. That is what we're trying to avoid. With the reproduction instructions, it'll be possible to check which kernel versions are affected, and after applying a fix to make sure that the bug is gone from those version. And if the reproduction can be trivialized to a test, we can introduce a regression check to CI. A patch that claims to fix a deadlock in upstream kernel should include that splat from upstream kernel, not a speculated chain. Again, this is just the regular due diligence, because we have made errors in the past. It is for those self-made errors we know not to merge fixes too quickly before we are able to reproduce the error and make sure it is gone. It's not about where the patch came from, it's about avoiding errors. > We put this patch into > Ubuntu now as well, because praying for a response from i915 maintainers while > the 20.04 release was on the horizon was not an option. > > > There is an another similar thread where there's jumping into > > conclusions and doing ad-hoc patches for already fixed issues: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20200414144309.GB2082@sultan-box.localdomain/ > > Maybe this wouldn't have happened if I had received a proper response for that > issue on gitlab from the get-go... Instead I got the run-around from Chris > claiming that it wasn't an i915 bug: > > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/1599 > > > I appreciate enthusiasm to provide fixes to i915 but we should > > continue do the regular due diligence to make sure we're properly > > fixing bugs in upstream kernels. And when fixing them, to make > > sure we're not simply papering over them for a single use case. > > > > It would be preferred to file a bug for the seen issues, > > describing how to reproduce them with vanilla upstream kernels: > > > > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/wikis/How-to-file-i915-bugs > > gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel is where bugs go to be neglected, as noted > above. I really see no reason to send anything there anymore, when the vast > majority of community-sourced bug reports go ignored. In the above bug, you claim to be booting vanilla kernel but the splat clearly says "5.4.28-00007-g64bb42e80256-dirty", so the developer correctly requested to bisect the error between 5.4.27 and 5.4.28 vanilla kernels, which you seem to have ignored and simply jumped to provide a patch. Apologies if it feels like the bugs do not get enough attention, but we do our best to act on the reported bugs. You can best guarantee that your bug is getting the attention by providing all the details requested in the above link. Without that information, it'll be hard to assess the severity of the bug. Above bug is missing critical pieces of information which help us in assessing the severity: 1. Is the bug reproducible on drm-tip? 2. How to reproduce? 3. How often does it reproduce? 4. Which hardware? If that information is missing, it means that that some of our developers needs to find out all those bits of information before we can even assess the severity of the bug. And as we also have bugs where the information is present, those are often acted on first. Again, no politics involved and no praying needed. We just have a process to follow to make sure we don't repeat our past mistakes as it's only humans who work on the bugs. At times it may feel rigid and not suited for the specific case where you feel there is a shorter route to produce a fix, but following the bug process helps us understand the problem and avoid trivial mistakes. Regards, Joonas _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
