Re: [PATCH 7/7] drm/i915: add i915_get_reset_stats_ioctl

[Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>]

On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 07:32:05 +0100
Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Ian Romanick <idr@freedesktop.org> wrote:
> >>> On 10/27/2013 05:30 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 06:42:35PM -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
> >>>>> Since the Mesa merge window is closing soon, I'm finally getting back on
> >>>>> this.  I've pushed a rebase of my old Mesa branch to my fd.o repo
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~idr/mesa/log/?h=robustness3
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have a couple questions...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. Has any of this landed an a kernel tree anywhere?
> >>>>
> >>>> Afaik everything but the actual ioctl and i-g-t testcase has landed.
> >>>
> >>> And that stuff will land once my patches hit the Mesa list or ... ?
> >>
> >> Yup.
> >
> > Hey kernel first, then upstream projects, at the moment libdrm has
> > ioctls in it that I have no upstream solid kernel commit for,
> >
> > Either in the next 24 hrs I have this in my tree or the libdrm commits
> > need to be reverted,
> >
> > and if someone releases libdrm in that time span then I'm going to be
> > quite pissed.
> 
> It's kinda too late imo for 3.13 (and there's an open question whether
> we need one more flag or not), so I wanted to pull it in into 3.14.
> Which also gives us plenty of time to add or not add that optional
> flag. So I guess time to revert. Can you do that pls?

This ioctl is tiny and self-contained.  So it seems like as long as the
Mesa team is good with it (i.e. using it successfully), there shouldn't
be a problem pushing it now.  There's no risk of regression as it's a
new feature and isolated.

Dave?

-- 
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center