On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:34:37AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jun 2015, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:29:13AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > >> On Fri, 19 Jun 2015, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > 4.0-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > >> > >> The commit to be backported is already reverted in upstream, and I just > >> got an email from you backporting the revert as well... would be best to > >> *not* backport either of these: > >> > >> commit 0aedb1626566efd72b369c01992ee7413c82a0c5 > >> Author: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Date: Thu May 28 18:32:36 2015 +0300 > >> > >> drm/i915: Don't skip request retirement if the active list is empty > >> > >> commit 245ec9d85696c3e539b23e210f248698b478379c > >> Author: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Date: Mon Jun 15 12:59:37 2015 +0300 > >> > >> Revert "drm/i915: Don't skip request retirement if the active list is empty" > >> > >> I only marked the revert cc: stable because the original was too. > > > > This patch is now in 4.0 so what do I suggest I do? Just take these as > > well? > > > > confused, > > Sorry for confusing you. Please take neither or take both. So, based on what I have queued up, and what is already released in 4.0-stable, we should be fine, right? -- 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