From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Wilson Subject: Re: Testing intel-drm Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 08:39:13 +0100 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D41569E830 for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 00:39:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org To: Georg Grabler , intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 09:01:41 +0200, Georg Grabler wrote: > Hi Guys, > > Just a question since I opened two bug reports lately (35808, 35812), I > wanted to ask which intel-drm branches you generally would like the test > against. I tested against 2.6.38.2 for now, but to have it tested against > your current developments - which branch to use? intel-drm-next or > intel-drm-fixes, or both? For an outright bug like you have found, we should try to get a stable patch. So drm-intel-fixes is where it should land first. On the other hand, if fixing the issue is complicated then we would have no choice but to let it sit on drm-intel-next so that we more opportunity to run more regression tests upon it. However, we first need to get a patch ready for you to test. :| -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre