Adding the right people.
It seems that the three commits that needed reverting are
f885056a48cc ("mm: simplify swapdev_block")
3e3126cf2a6d ("mm: only make map_swap_entry available for CONFIG_HIBERNATION")
48d15436fde6 ("mm: remove get_swap_bio")
and while they look very harmless to me, let's bring in Christoph and
Jens who were actually involved with them.
I'm assuming that it's that third one that is the real issue (and the
two other ones were to get to it), but it would also be good to know
what the actual details of the regression actually were.
Maybe that's obvious to somebody who has more context about the 9815
CI runs and its web interface, but it sure isn't clear to me.
Jens, Christoph?
Linus
On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 11:31 AM Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 at 03:27, Sarvela, Tomi P <tomi.p.sarvela@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > The regression has been identified; Chris Wilson found commits touching
> >
> > swapfile.c, and reverting them the issue couldn’t be reproduced any more.
> >
> >
> >
> > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/87549/
> >
> >
> >
> > This revert will be applied to core-for-CI branch. When new CI_DRM has
> >
> > been built, shard-testing will be enabled again.
>
> Just making sure this is on the radar upstream.
>
> Dave.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
