From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ville =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.9 36/56] drm/i915: Fix the level 0 max_wm hack on VLV/CHV Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:03:20 +0200 Message-ID: <20171115170320.GK10981@intel.com> References: <20171115024521.5884-1-alexander.levin@verizon.com> <20171115024521.5884-36-alexander.levin@verizon.com> <20171115110805.GX10981@intel.com> <20171115164451.ogl3ku6qr3cfnbk7@sasha-lappy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171115164451.ogl3ku6qr3cfnbk7@sasha-lappy> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org To: alexander.levin@verizon.com Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" , intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org 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 > >> > >> [ 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 > >> 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 > >> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin > > > >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. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC