Re: [PATCH 0/5] intel_pstate updates for v3.14-rcX

[Dirk Brandewie <dirk.brandewie@gmail.com>]

On 02/18/2014 04:53 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 04:35:26 PM Dirk Brandewie wrote:
>> On 02/18/2014 04:43 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 04:24:02 PM Dirk Brandewie wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 03:53:48 PM Dirk Brandewie wrote:
>>>>>> On 02/18/2014 02:27 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 12:29:54 PM Dirk Brandewie wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Rafael,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 02/12/2014 10:01 AM, dirk.brandewie@gmail.com <javascript:;>wrote:
>>>>>>>>> From: Dirk Brandewie <dirk.j.brandewie@intel.com <javascript:;>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Based on v3.14-rc2
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Patch 1 removes energy reporting the patch from Maurizio Lambardi
>>>>>>>>>      intel_pstate: fix race condition in intel_pstate_init() can be
>>>>> dropped.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any reason why patches 2-5 did not make rc3 other than timing?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Patches 2/3 can easily wait for v3.15.x
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Patches 4/5 fix bugs that are in the wild.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I asked you about them, but you didn't reply:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=139225158531023&w=4
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, do patches [4-5/5] depend on [2-3/5]?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If not, I can queue them up for -rc4.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All the patches are independent of one another.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Patch 2 is straight cleanup no functional change but reduces the memory
>>>>>> footprint slightly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Patch 3 is a bug that will only be seen when the PID is reset at init
>>>>> time
>>>>>> or when a change is made to PID params via debugfs.  The problem will
>>>>> only
>>>>>> exist for one sample time since it is setting last_err in the PID.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Patch 4-5 are bugs found during Baytrail-T testing
>>>>>
>>>>> Are there any pointers to bug reports that may be included in the
>>>>> changelogs
>>>>> of these?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No.  I got the reports via email.  I could probably get the reporters to
>>>> file bugzillas.
>>>
>>> It would be good to add information about what machines are affected
>>> and what the user-visible problems are to the changelogs for future
>>> reference.
>>>
>>> And do we want these two patches in -stable?  If so, what -stable series should
>>> they go into?
>>
>> Patch 2 v3.10+
>>
>> Patch 3 v3.12+
>
> You said [2-3/5] were cleanups, so why do you think they are -stable material?

I misspoke these are not stable material

>
>> Patch 4/5 v3.13+
>
> OK
>
> What about the bug information?  Can you please point me to the e-mail threads
> where the bugs were discussed at least?
>
> Rafael
>