From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753968AbdKQL0y convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Nov 2017 06:26:54 -0500 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:64824 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753778AbdKQL0p (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Nov 2017 06:26:45 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,408,1505804400"; d="scan'208";a="3746255" From: Jani Nikula To: Ville =?utf-8?B?U3lyasOkbMOk?= , alexander.levin@verizon.com Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" , "stable\@vger.kernel.org" , Greg KH Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.9 36/56] drm/i915: Fix the level 0 max_wm hack on VLV/CHV In-Reply-To: <20171115170320.GK10981@intel.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo References: <20171115024521.5884-1-alexander.levin@verizon.com> <20171115024521.5884-36-alexander.levin@verizon.com> <20171115110805.GX10981@intel.com> <20171115164451.ogl3ku6qr3cfnbk7@sasha-lappy> <20171115170320.GK10981@intel.com> Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 13:28:05 +0200 Message-ID: <87bmk15em2.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Greg On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > 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. Agreed. First, I think an automatic backport process is against the stable kernel rules (e.g. "It must fix a real bug that bothers people"). Second, we can't and won't take any responsibility for backports we didn't indicate with Cc: stable, a Fixes: tag, or a specific backport request. If you think there's a commit that should be backported and is known to fix a user visible issue (as per the stable rules!), please check with us first. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center