From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 07:48:39 -0700
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
	Ville =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?=
	<ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>,
	Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.0 077/105] drm/i915: Dont skip request retirement if
 the active list is empty
Message-ID: <20150625144839.GA20971@kroah.com>
References: <20150619203558.187802739@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20150619203600.449494173@linuxfoundation.org>
 <87h9py288m.fsf@intel.com>
 <20150624145818.GD25842@kroah.com>
 <87zj3oz1f6.fsf@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <87zj3oz1f6.fsf@intel.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <stable.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:34:37AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2015, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:29:13AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> On Fri, 19 Jun 2015, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> > 4.0-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> >> 
> >> The commit to be backported is already reverted in upstream, and I just
> >> got an email from you backporting the revert as well... would be best to
> >> *not* backport either of these:
> >> 
> >> commit 0aedb1626566efd72b369c01992ee7413c82a0c5
> >> Author: Ville Syrj�l� <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> >> Date:   Thu May 28 18:32:36 2015 +0300
> >> 
> >>     drm/i915: Don't skip request retirement if the active list is empty
> >> 
> >> commit 245ec9d85696c3e539b23e210f248698b478379c
> >> Author: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
> >> Date:   Mon Jun 15 12:59:37 2015 +0300
> >> 
> >>     Revert "drm/i915: Don't skip request retirement if the active list is empty"
> >> 
> >> I only marked the revert cc: stable because the original was too.
> >
> > This patch is now in 4.0 so what do I suggest I do?  Just take these as
> > well?
> >
> > confused,
> 
> Sorry for confusing you. Please take neither or take both.

So, based on what I have queued up, and what is already released in
4.0-stable, we should be fine, right?