On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:16 PM, John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 6:42 PM, John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Sigh. So you're going to make me write a separate patch that moves it over? >> >> We've written it already, Imre posted the link to the old discussion: >> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/5/10/187 >> >> But if the first attempt doesn't sufficiently stick I tend to chase >> the patches any more. But if you want to resurrect this I could ping >> Imre and ask him to pick it up again or you could rebase his patches. > > Well, last I saw the initial patch was buggy, no? I don't think I saw > it being resubmitted. I didn't see your reply in that thread nor in the v2 follow up at http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=136854294730957&w=2 Maybe I missed it, but response seems to have been lukewarm overall. >>> But still, I do see our change broke you here, so I'm not going to object. >> >> Ok, thanks I'll pull this in through drm-intel for 3.19 (3.18 is kinda >> done already I guess) with cc: stable. > > You probably should submit it for 3.18 and let Linus decide if its too > late. I've already gotten yelled at by Ingo for pushing patches in the > merge window that cc stable. Even if its out of a desire to let the > patches get wider testing, its something of a hot-button item for > folks. :) Oh I know, but if you count your regression rate in bugs-per-day you end up with different standards ;-) -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
