From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754040AbZF2S2Q (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:28:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752756AbZF2S2B (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:28:01 -0400 Received: from kroah.org ([198.145.64.141]:52893 "EHLO coco.kroah.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752514AbZF2S2A (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:28:00 -0400 Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:27:38 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Andrew Morton Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, woodys@xandros.com, stefan.bader@canonical.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, penberg@cs.helsinki.fi, Jesse Barnes , apw@canonical.com, tim.gardner@canonical.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, stable@kernel.org Subject: Re: [stable] [Intel-gfx] Intel 915GM MCHBAR bug Message-ID: <20090629182738.GD3901@kroah.com> References: <4A242C81.6020906@cs.helsinki.fi> <4A298971.5080006@xandros.com> <4A2A0951.1020608@cs.helsinki.fi> <20090605232711.d8503262.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4A2A0E8C.1010109@cs.helsinki.fi> <20090606212759.31970fae@jbarnes-x200> <20090609150757.4a2109a9@jbarnes-x200> <20090609152828.d82528f3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090629173308.GB3901@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090629173308.GB3901@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:33:08AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 03:28:28PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 15:07:57 -0700 > > Jesse Barnes wrote: > > > > > > > Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > > These might end up being 2.6.30.1 material. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, agreed completely. We probably want ACK from Jesse and Bjorn, > > > > > though. > > > > > > > > I'm ok with it being 2.6.30.1 stuff, but given the significance of the > > > > change we were worried about putting it into 2.6.30 late in the cycle. > > > > But as you say, it's a very important performance fix for many > > > > machines... > > > > > > > > Anyway, Eric may already have it merged. Eric? > > > > > > > > > > It's merged now into the drm-intel-next tree, and therefore queued for > > > the merge window. > > > > > > > > This? http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/anholt/drm-intel.git;a=commitdiff;h=d765898970f35acef960581f678b9da9d5c779fa;hp=1b8e69662e1a086878bf930a6042daf7f8a076cc > > > > It doesn't have cc:stable in the changelog, so there's a reasonable > > chance that it will get lost. > > > > The -stable guys troll the commit list looking for mainline commits > > which mention stable@kernel.org in the changelog. > > I got it for the next .30 release. I take it back. It doesn't build properly on 2.6.30, can someone backport commit d765898970f35acef960581f678b9da9d5c779fa to the 2.6.30 tree and send it to stable@kernel.org so that we can apply it to resolve this issue? And is it relevant to 2.6.29 as well? thanks, greg k-h