On 3/16/22 7:02 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 04:56:11PM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:Hi, I just found the commit in 5.10 stable kernel. stable-linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain 8a3fc32b322cc3081dd3569047c9834f496b4ab0 | head -1 v5.10.17 commit 8a3fc32b322cc3081dd3569047c9834f496b4ab0 Author: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu Feb 4 18:25:37 2021 +0100 cpufreq: ACPI: Extend frequency tables to cover boost frequencies commit 3c55e94c0adea4a5389c4b80f6ae9927dd6a4501 upstream. [ ... ] Fixes: 41ea667227ba ("x86, sched: Calculate frequency invariance for AMD systems") Fixes: 976df7e5730e ("x86, sched: Use midpoint of max_boost and max_P for frequency invariance on AMD EPYC") Fixes: db865272d9c4 ("cpufreq: Avoid configuring old governors as default with intel_pstate") Except db865272d9c4 was applied in v5.10-rc2, the others (41ea667227ba and 976df7e5730e) were first appeared in v5.11-rc1. linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain 41ea667227ba | head -1 v5.11-rc1 linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain 976df7e5730e | head -1 v5.11-rc1 linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain db865272d9c4 | head -1 v5.10-rc2 So I am wondering if the mentioned commit is suitable for 5.10 stable kernel, or what am I missing?Is it causing a problem for you? What is the issue with having it in the 5.10.y tree?
No. I am trying to port 41ea667227ba and relevant commits to our kernel which is based on 5.10 stable kernel, and I am being asked to port 3c55e94c0ade per the fix tag after 41ea667227ba was added, then I was confused because of conflict. Thanks, Guoqing
