Re: [PATCH 6.9 073/281] drm/xe: Use ordered WQ for G2H handler

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 03:41:24PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2024, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 08:03:33AM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 04:16:56PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 04:03:29PM +0200, Francois Dugast wrote:
> >> > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 02:53:52PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >> > > > 6.9-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> >> > > 
> >> > > Hi Greg,
> >> > > 
> >> > > This patch seems to be a duplicate and should be dropped.
> >> 
> >> Please also drop the 6.9.7-rc1:
> >> 
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20240625085557.190548833@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u
> >
> > Done.
> >
> >> > How are we supposed to be able to determine this?
> >> > 
> >> > When you all check in commits into multiple branches, and tag them for
> >> > stable: and then they hit Linus's tree, and all hell breaks loose on our
> >> > scripts.  "Normally" this tag:
> >> > 
> >> > > > (cherry picked from commit 50aec9665e0babd62b9eee4e613d9a1ef8d2b7de)
> >> > 
> >> > Would help out here, but it doesn't.  
> >> 
> >> I wonder if there would be a way of automate this on stable scripts
> >> to avoid attempting a cherry pick that is already there.
> >
> > Please tell me how to do so.
> >
> >> But I do understand that any change like this would cause a 'latency'
> >> on the scripts and slow down everything.
> >
> > Depends, I already put a huge latency on drm stable patches because of
> > this mess.  And I see few, if any, actual backports for when I report
> > FAILED stable patches, so what is going to get slower than it currently
> > is?
> >
> >> > Why not, what went wrong?
> >> 
> >> worst thing in this case is that git applied this cleanly, although
> >> the change was already there.
> >
> > Yup.
> >
> >> But also a timing thing. The faulty patch was already in the master.
> >> At the moment we applied the fix in our drm-xe-next, we had already
> >> sent the latest changes to the upcoming merge-window, so it propagated
> >> there as a cherry-pick, but we had to also send to the current -rc
> >> cycle and then the second cherry-pick also goes there.
> >> 
> >> This fast propagation to the current active development branch in general
> >> shouldn't be a problem, but a good thing so it is ensured that the fix
> >> gets quickly there. But clearly this configure a problem to the later
> >> propagation to the stable trees.
> >
> > Normally you all tag these cherry-picks as such.  You didn't do that
> > here or either place, so there was no way for anyone to know.  Please
> > fix that.
> >
> >> > I'll go drop this, but ugh, what a mess. It makes me dread every drm
> >> > patch that gets tagged for stable, and so I postpone taking them until I
> >> > am done with everything else and can't ignore them anymore.
> >> > 
> >> > Please fix your broken process.
> >> 
> >> When you say drm, do you have same problem with patches coming from
> >> other drm drivers, drm-misc, or is it really only Intel trees?
> >> (only drm-intel (i915) and drm-xe)?
> >
> > Intel trees have traditionally been the worst, but normally you all give
> > me some cherry-pick clue on the commits so I can weed them out.  That
> > didn't happen here.
> >
> > But, I will note that the AMD drm tree is now starting to do this, in
> > much worse ways than the Intel tree because there is NO cherry-pick
> > information anywhere, so again, I have no idea what to do and massive
> > conflicts happen.
> >
> > So AMD is copying your bad behavior, please, both of you stop and fix
> > this so that it isn't so broken.
> >
> > Again, I understand the need/want to have multiple versions of the same
> > patch in different branches to get fixes merged quicker, but when you do
> > that, please give me a way to determine this, otherwise we have no
> > chance.
> 
> To be fair, this one seems to have been an accident. The same commit was
> cherry-picked to *two* different branches by two different people
> [1][2], and this is something we try not to do. Any cherry-picks should
> go to one tree only, it's checked by our scripts, but it's not race free
> when two people are doing this roughly at the same time.

any cherry-pick SHOULD have the git id referenced when they are
cherry-picked, that's what the id is there for.  Please always do that.

greg k-h




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux