Messages in this thread |  | | From | Jani Nikula <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.9 36/56] drm/i915: Fix the level 0 max_wm hack on VLV/CHV | Date | Fri, 17 Nov 2017 13:28:05 +0200 |
| |
Cc: Greg
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 04:44:54PM +0000, alexander.levin@verizon.com wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 01:08:05PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: >> >On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 02:45:43AM +0000, alexander.levin@verizon.com wrote: >> >> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> >> >> >> >> [ Upstream commit 1be4d3793d5a93daddcd9be657c429b38ad750a3 ] >> >> >> >> The watermark should never exceed the FIFO size, so we need to >> >> check against the current FIFO size instead of the theoretical >> >> maximum when we clamp the level 0 watermark. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> >> >> Link: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__patchwork.freedesktop.org_patch_msgid_1480354637-2D14209-2D4-2Dgit-2Dsend-2Demail-2Dville.syrjala-40linux.intel.com&d=DwIDAw&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=bUtaaC9mlBij4OjEG_D-KPul_335azYzfC4Rjgomobo&m=iuPtUar-VEGbH1jmVH_UTr4C02X8fmjHUfNYix-Yc0Y&s=ha_F0zP3A1Aztp5S5e6_bqdhiuuPXhn0dRWQ58vv3Is&e= >> >> Reviewed-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com> >> >> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@verizon.com> >> > >> >Why are these patches being proposed for stable? They're not straight up >> >fixes for known issues, and there's always a chance that something will >> >break. Who is doing the qa on this? >> >> Hi Ville, >> >> They were selected automatically as part of a new process we're trying >> out. If you disagree with the selection I'd be happy to drop it. > > How does that automatic process decide that a patch should be backported? > > drm and i915 are very fast moving targets so unintended side effects from > backported patches is a real possibility. So I would recommend against > backporting anything that isn't fixing a real issue affecting users. We > do try to add the cc:stable to such patches.
Agreed.
First, I think an automatic backport process is against the stable kernel rules (e.g. "It must fix a real bug that bothers people").
Second, we can't and won't take any responsibility for backports we didn't indicate with Cc: stable, a Fixes: tag, or a specific backport request.
If you think there's a commit that should be backported and is known to fix a user visible issue (as per the stable rules!), please check with us first.
BR, Jani.
-- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
|  |