lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [Intel-gfx] The i915 stable patch marking is totally broken
    Date
    On Thu, 16 Mar 2017, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
    > And again, you all are the only ones that have this issue. You might
    > find a handfull of patches for stable that come in twice in the rest of
    > the kernel, but your "little" driver dwarfs that by an order of
    > magnitude. I really think you are doing it wrong, no one else seems to
    > have this issue...

    Just perhaps we have really active development with lots of diligence in
    tagging fixes with Fixes: and Cc: stable, and not so many others do?

    > I'll be back home next week and look into writing some scripts for this,
    > but please consider just switching your "which branch does it go into
    > first" model, which would really save me a ton of time, and remove
    > confusion from anyone who ever runs across one of these cherry-pick
    > messages.

    Usually our development branches are months ahead of what's currently
    happening in Linus' master. We already have tons of stuff ready for
    v4.12, and at around v4.11-rc5 we start aiming at v4.13. This is what
    everyone wants us to do, be ready earlier and earlier for the merge
    windows.

    It is *much* easier for us to grind the fixes through our CI and QA on
    our development branches, make sure the fixes are good and compatible
    with what's coming ahead, and that the issues stay fixed. When we merge
    Linus' master and our -next, we can always trivially resolve the
    conflict to what's in our -next, and the fixes are not lost. And if we
    find issues with the commits, we can choose to not cherry-pick them
    until they're fixed.

    In the past, we did have lots of trouble with people fixing issues in
    our development branches (because that's what you develop on), and the
    fixes would not apply to Linus' master. We'd redo the patch, and end up
    with nasty conflicts with what's in -next. We ended up stalling on fixes
    in *both* branches. I think we did a much worse job getting things done
    with the reverse order of applying fixes, because it was so much harder
    for us.

    In the end, the model is not unlike the stable workflow. It's just that
    stable doesn't merge back with Linus' master.

    BR,
    Jani.


    --
    Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2017-03-16 15:48    [W:4.580 / U:0.004 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site