On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:45:50AM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 01:47:14PM +0000, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 03:41:18PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 02:13:00PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 02:54:31PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 01:36:08PM +0100, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > > The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.14-stable tree. > > > > > > > > > > > > I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at > > > > > > Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst. > > > > > > > > > > It fixes a regression. Why do you think it's not suitable for stable? > > > > > > > > Because: > > > > > > > > > > I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to > > > > > > <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> and let me know why this patch should be > > > > > > applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be > > > > > > seen again. > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > >From 3572f04c69ed4369da5d3c65d84fb18774aa60b6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > > > > From: =?UTF-8?q?Ville=20Syrj=C3=A4l=C3=A4?= <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 18:02:15 +0200 > > > > > > Subject: [PATCH] drm/i915: Fix init_clock_gating for resume > > > > > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > > > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > > > > > > > > > > > Moving the init_clock_gating() call from intel_modeset_init_hw() to > > > > > > intel_modeset_gem_init() had an unintended effect of not applying > > > > > > some workarounds on resume. This, for example, cause some kind of > > > > > > corruption to appear at the top of my IVB Thinkpad X1 Carbon LVDS > > > > > > screen after hibernation. Fix the problem by explicitly calling > > > > > > init_clock_gating() from the resume path. > > > > > > > > > > > > I really hope this doesn't break something else again. At least > > > > > > the problems reported at https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103549 > > > > > > didn't make a comeback, even after a hibernate cycle. > > > > > > > > > > > > v2: Reorder the init_clock_gating vs. modeset_init_hw to match > > > > > > the display reset path (Rodrigo) > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Fixes: 6ac43272768c ("drm/i915: Move init_clock_gating() back to where it was") > > > > > > > > $ git describe --contains 6ac43272768c > > > > v4.15-rc1~19^2~13^2~1 > > > > > > > > How is this a 4.14 regression? > > > > > > commit 6ac43272768ca901daac4076a66c2c4e3c7b9321 > > > Author: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Date: Wed Nov 8 15:35:55 2017 +0200 > > > > > > drm/i915: Move init_clock_gating() back to where it was > > > ... > > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > > > > So 4.14 is going to break once that gets backported. > > > > Ok, then the backporter should include both of those, as this one did > > not apply at all to the tree :( > > Hi Greg, > > I have few questions here around this history. Please help me to understand > what is going on so we can improve the process and make sure this doesn't happen > again. > > I'm also bringing Daniel because he mentioned you have removed us from a > blacklist and I don't know details about the history of that or on any details > that could make you angry in the past with our fixes. > > In summary: > > - This patch here 3572f04c69ed ("drm/i915: Fix init_clock_gating\ > for resume") > - Fixes 6ac43272768c (part of 4.15-rc2 now) This patch got rejected and got a FAILED email > - Which fixes b7048ea12fbb (released first on v4.11) > - which fixes ed4a6a7ca853 (introduced on 4.7) > > My questions: > > - What happened with 6ac43272768c that wasn't considered for the 4.14 stable? It did not apply, and got a FAILED email response. > It has the same Cc:stable tag as the last patch. Is there anything we should > had done differently to make sure this patch was got by you on 4.14 before > the second one blowing up your scripts? Nope, not much you can do about it failing :) > - I wonder if 4.9 stable should also have all of them as well. Should it? That's up to you all, not me. > Maybe > the should part of it is more for Ville to tell us actually. But if so the > next question would be what process should we follow for that? Just backport > those 3 to 4.9.66 and test here and send to stable@ ml? Yes that would be great. > - What was the reason that you used the "WTF - never to be seen again" tone > instead of the regular "FAILED - if someone wants to apply..."? Or in other > words, what can we do to improve and not make you angry again? First off, the WTF is just an email script, don't take it personally. Second, I sent it because it referred to a patch that was not in 4.14, and was not in any stable queue. I did not catch that I had already rejected it, as I really don't have a way to do that at all. So all is fine, just backport the changes and send them to me and I'll be glad to queue them up. thanks, greg k-h