On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 05:05:47AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 09:13:02AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The core fix was applied in > > > > > > commit a63b03e2d2477586440741677ecac45bcf28d7b1 > > > Author: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Date: Tue Jan 6 10:29:35 2015 +0000 > > > > > > mutex: Always clear owner field upon mutex_unlock() > > > > > > (note the absence of stable@ tag) > > > > > > so we can now revert our band-aid commit 226e5ae9e5f910 for -next. > > > > Daniel, this one is for dinq, not fixes. > > I tried to apply it, then noticed that I don't even have the original > patch in there yet. It's sitting in your latest -fixes pull (which means > that patch is not really needed since the real fix in the mutex code > landed). Imo better if we don't ship a kernel with this. No. The core patch is not for stable, and we need a patch for stable. Since it is lower risk (at least for us) to modify our code, that is what I opted to do. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
