On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Am 10.04.2016 um 18:22 schrieb Greg KH: >> >> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 04:31:30PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 04:14:30PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 03:48:18PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Grigori Goronzy <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This fix was written against drm-next, but when it was >>>>>>> backported to 4.5 as a stable fix, the driver internal >>>>>>> structure change was missed. Fix that up here to avoid >>>>>>> a hang due to waiting for the wrong sequence number. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> v2: agd: fix up commit message >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Grigori Goronzy <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@xxxxxxx> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Greg, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The code is correct for 4.6, this fix should be applied to >>>>>>> 4.5 and older stable kernels. >>>>>> >>>>>> What is the patch in 4.6 that made it "correct"? I would much rather >>>>>> take that than something else. >>>>> >>>>> It's correct as is for 4.6. I cherry-picked it out of my drm-next >>>>> tree into 4.5 since it was a bug fix, but missed the internal driver >>>>> structure change in drm-next that was not in 4.5. >>>> >>>> I'm sorry, I don't understand at all what you mean here :( >>>> >>>> What changed between 4.5.0 and 4.6-rc1 that made 4.5 "broken"? What >>>> fixed it in 4.6-rc1? >>> >>> The patch was written and tested against drm-next, but I cherry-picked >>> it to 4.5 as is since it was a bug fix. However, I missed the >>> internal driver structure change that it depended on. Now that >>> drm-next has been merged into 4.6 (including the driver structure >>> change), the code from 4.5 works fine. However 4.5 and older kernels >>> are broken since they don't have the changes for 4.6. >> >> I still don't understand. What is the commit in Linus's tree that >> matches this change? Why can't I just cherry-pick that patch instead of >> this "custom" one? > > > The change in Linus tree this bug fix was based on is the improvement of the > sequence handling and removal of hardware semaphores I did for 4.6. And > those two new features in turn are based on the introduction of the GPU > scheduler earlier in the 4.6 cycle. > > In total I think you would need to cherry pick something between 30 and 50 > patches to get to the same state and none of them are bug fixes which should > go into 4.5 or older kernels. > > So Alex and Grigori's argumentation is valid that this should be fixed by > this custom single line change instead of backporting everything it's based > upon. > > Sorry for not being clear about this, > Christian. Greg is there any chance this could be applied? Alex > >> >> thanks, >> >> greg k-h > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html