On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 4:39 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> AFAICT something got rather screwed up in i915 land for 4.5. >>>> >>>> $ git log --oneline --grep='Pretend cursor is always on' v4.5 >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/ >>>> e2e407dc093f drm/i915: Pretend cursor is always on for ILK-style WM >>>> calculations (v2) >>>> >>>> $ git log --oneline --grep='Pretend cursor is always on' v4.6-rc1 >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/ >>>> e2e407dc093f drm/i915: Pretend cursor is always on for ILK-style WM >>>> calculations (v2) >>>> b2435692dbb7 drm/i915: Pretend cursor is always on for ILK-style WM >>>> calculations (v2) >>>> >>>> The two patches there are almost, but not quite, the same thing, which >>>> makes me wonder how they both ended up in Linus' tree without an >>>> obvious merge conflict. >>>> >>>> I have no idea what caused this. However, I think (on very little >>>> inspection, but it's consistent with problems I have with 4.5 on my >>>> laptop) that the first one is an *incorrect* fix for a regression in >>>> 4.5 and the second is a correct fix for the same regression. 4.6-rc1 >>>> seems okay. >>>> >>>> I reported the regression and everyone involved has known about it for >>>> weeks. Nonetheless, 4.5 final is busted. >>> >>> Quoting from e2e407dc093f >>> >>> "(cherry picked from commit b2435692dbb709d4c8ff3b2f2815c9b8423b72bb)" >>> >>> i.e. this is intentionally twice in the history. We started to soak >>> bugfixes in -next and then cherry pick them because we had too much >>> fun with things blowing up, and also too much fun with really messy >>> conflicts. It's not a botched patch in 4.5 or anything else nefarious >>> at all. >> >> Bah, sorry, I read it wrong. They have the same final state but they >> were on different bases. I somehow reversed this in my head and >> thought they had the same initial state and different final states. >> > > Also, sorry for the excessive diatribe. I plead sleepiness and > mis-reading of code. Thanks. We really appreciate friendly discussions here on intel-gfx, the technical challenges are hard enough as is. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
