On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 04:47:05PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 03:14:48PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 08:49:35PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Ben Widawsky > > > <benjamin.widawsky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > The following patches are the backported "simple" fixes for 3.14. Some > > > > of these already had Cc: stable on them, but required conflict > > > > resolution which I've provided (presumably they canbe dropped if it's > > > > easier for upstream). There will be another series of backports which > > > > has fixes that require more than a single patch. > > > > > > > > I will not have a machine to test these on until Monday, but I am > > > > mailing them out now in case our QA can get it tested sooner. > > > > > > > > Ben Widawsky (2): > > > > drm/i915/bdw: Use scratch page table for GEN8 PPGTT > > > > drm/i915/bdw: Restore PPAT on thaw > > > > > > > > Damien Lespiau (1): > > > > drm/i915/bdw: The TLB invalidation mechanism has been removed from > > > > INSTPM > > > > > > > > Jani Nikula (1): > > > > drm/i915: don't flood the logs about bdw semaphores > > > > > > > > Kenneth Graunke (2): > > > > drm/i915: Add a partial instruction shootdown workaround on Broadwell. > > > > drm/i915: Add thread stall DOP clock gating workaround on Broadwell. > > > > > > > > Mika Kuoppala (2): > > > > drm/i915: Fix forcewake counts for gen8 > > > > drm/i915: Do forcewake reset on gen8 > > > > > > > > Ville Syrjälä (4): > > > > drm/i915: Disable semaphore wait event idle message on BDW > > > > drm/i915: Implement WaDisableSDEUnitClockGating:bdw > > > > drm/i915: We implement WaDisableAsyncFlipPerfMode:bdw > > > > drm/i915: Don't clobber CHICKEN_PIPESL_1 on BDW > > > > > > The stable team requires a reference to the sha1 of the upstream > > > commit, which your patches seem to lack. git cherry-pick -x > > > automatically adds that for you. > > > > I decided not to do this because in the git help it says, > > "This is done only for cherry picks without conflicts." I believe only > > one of these patches didn't actually have a conflict (so I should have > > done it for that). So I will assume I should ignore this recommendation > > from the git help. I didn't want to make it seem like these patches did > > not have conflicts. > > > > > > > > Also please don't send out backports to stable if we still want to do > > > some testing on them. Adding Greg and stable so he knows that he can > > > bin this series for now. Of course all the patches in here which > > > already have cc: stable in upstream should still go through the normal > > > process (presuming they don't conflict ofc). But since most of these > > > patches are from drm-intel-next we must wait anyway until drm-next has > > > been merged into Linus' tree. > > > > > > > Since you added Greg, I am curious - as noted in the cover letter, I've > > done the merge conflict resolution on the patches which already had Cc: > > stable. I didn't intentionally include any patches which already had Cc: > > stable and didn't require conflict resolution. Are those > > interesting/useful, should I drop them from the series? > > I have no idea what is going on here, what this original email was from > / about, or what I am supposed to do here... > > The stable patch process is pretty well defined, and documented, is that > lacking somehow, and if so, in what? > > greg k-h My apologies, I didn't understand what Daniel had originally wanted from me, and I think the plan changed a bit in flight. I'm sorry you got dragged into it. The stable process documentation is perfectly adequate. -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- 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