On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 04:05:05PM +0000, Deucher, Alexander wrote: > [Public] > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 11:36 AM > > To: Deucher, Alexander <Alexander.Deucher@xxxxxxx> > > Cc: Michel Dänzer <mdaenzer@xxxxxxxxxx>; Koenig, Christian > > <Christian.Koenig@xxxxxxx>; Quan, Evan <Evan.Quan@xxxxxxx>; Lazar, > > Lijo <Lijo.Lazar@xxxxxxx>; stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] drm/amdgpu: Cancel delayed work > > when GFXOFF is disabled" failed to apply to 5.14-stable tree > > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 02:42:42PM +0000, Deucher, Alexander wrote: > > > [Public] > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Michel Dänzer <mdaenzer@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 9:55 AM > > > > To: Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: Deucher, Alexander <Alexander.Deucher@xxxxxxx>; Koenig, > > > > Christian <Christian.Koenig@xxxxxxx>; Quan, Evan > > > > <Evan.Quan@xxxxxxx>; Lazar, Lijo <Lijo.Lazar@xxxxxxx>; > > > > stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > Subject: Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] drm/amdgpu: Cancel delayed work > > > > when GFXOFF is disabled" failed to apply to 5.14-stable tree > > > > > > > > On 2021-09-16 15:48, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 03:39:16PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > > >> On 2021-09-16 15:05, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> The patch below does not apply to the 5.14-stable tree. > > > > >>> If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or > > > > >>> longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the > > > > >>> original git commit id to <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>. > > > > >> > > > > >> It's already in 5.14, commit > > 32bc8f8373d2d6a681c96e4b25dca60d4d1c6016. > > > > > > > > > > Odd, how were we supposed to know that? > > > > > > > > Looks like the fix was merged separately for 5.14 and 5.15. I don't > > > > know how/why that happened. Alex / Christian? > > > > > > The fix already landed in drm-next, but since this was before the > > > merge window, we wanted to make sure the fix also landed in stable, so > > > I cherry-picked it to 5.14. I'm not sure of a better way to handle > > > these sort of cases. > > > > You gotta give me a chance to know what happened. As the drm developers > > do this a lot, they have been putting the "cherry picked from" line in the > > patch because they can not merge between branches and keep the git id the > > same. > > > > So try using the '-x' option to 'git cherry-pick' next time? > > I can do that, but historically, I've gotten a lot of flack for that > because the commit doesn't exist in Linus' tree yet at that point as > the merge window hasn't opened yet. I totally agree, and would argue that this is NOT the way to do it either. But it seems like this is what the i915 developers have been doing for a few years now and honestly, it's better than nothing. But I would like a real solution here, this gets very annoying every -rc1 cycle for the DRM subsystem. You all are the only ones with this problem for some strange reason :( greg k-h
