On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 05:59:47PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> On ma, 2015-03-16 at 17:54 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, Bjørn Mork <bjorn@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > >> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 02:36:53PM +0100, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> > >>> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > >>>
> > >>> > The patch below does not apply to the 3.19-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>.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Huh? That patch applies to v3.19.1 without any changes AFAICS. What am
> > >>> I missing?
> > >>
> > >> It applies, yes, but breaks the build :(
> > >>
> > >> I don't have a "it applied but broke the build" script, sorry, it's such
> > >> a rare occurrence. Usually things just don't apply.
> > >
> > > Right, I knew I was missing something. Thanks.
> > >
> > > The problem is that the fix depends on commit 888d0d421663 ("drm/i915:
> > > add dev_to_i915 helper"). I've now verified that 3.19-stable builds
> > > with both patches applied.
> > >
> > > But it's of course up to Imre/Daniel/Jani how this should be handled.
> >
> > I'm fine with either picking that one for stable too, it's small and
> > simple enough, or someone(tm) modifying the actual fix to not need
> > that. If the former is okay with Greg, it's easiest.
>
> I've sent a v3 of the fix rebased on v3.19.1 getting rid of the
> dependency on the other patch.
No, I almost always want the original patches, not modified. It's
better, and safer, to take dependant patches for bug fixes, instead of
allowing the chance that a "modified" patch could be wrong. I'll queue
up the two original patches instead now.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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