Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] drm/amdgpu: Cancel delayed work when GFXOFF is disabled" failed to apply to 5.14-stable tree

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 04:05:05PM +0000, Deucher, Alexander wrote:
> [Public]
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 11:36 AM
> > To: Deucher, Alexander <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com>
> > Cc: Michel Dänzer <mdaenzer@redhat.com>; Koenig, Christian
> > <Christian.Koenig@amd.com>; Quan, Evan <Evan.Quan@amd.com>; Lazar,
> > Lijo <Lijo.Lazar@amd.com>; stable@vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] drm/amdgpu: Cancel delayed work
> > when GFXOFF is disabled" failed to apply to 5.14-stable tree
> > 
> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 02:42:42PM +0000, Deucher, Alexander wrote:
> > > [Public]
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Michel Dänzer <mdaenzer@redhat.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 9:55 AM
> > > > To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > > > Cc: Deucher, Alexander <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com>; Koenig,
> > > > Christian <Christian.Koenig@amd.com>; Quan, Evan
> > > > <Evan.Quan@amd.com>; Lazar, Lijo <Lijo.Lazar@amd.com>;
> > > > stable@vger.kernel.org
> > > > Subject: Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] drm/amdgpu: Cancel delayed work
> > > > when GFXOFF is disabled" failed to apply to 5.14-stable tree
> > > >
> > > > On 2021-09-16 15:48, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 03:39:16PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > > >> On 2021-09-16 15:05, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> The patch below does not apply to the 5.14-stable tree.
> > > > >>> If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or
> > > > >>> longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the
> > > > >>> original git commit id to <stable@vger.kernel.org>.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> It's already in 5.14, commit
> > 32bc8f8373d2d6a681c96e4b25dca60d4d1c6016.
> > > > >
> > > > > Odd, how were we supposed to know that?
> > > >
> > > > Looks like the fix was merged separately for 5.14 and 5.15. I don't
> > > > know how/why that happened. Alex / Christian?
> > >
> > > The fix already landed in drm-next, but since this was before the
> > > merge window, we wanted to make sure the fix also landed in stable, so
> > > I cherry-picked it to 5.14.  I'm not sure of a better way to handle
> > > these sort of cases.
> > 
> > You gotta give me a chance to know what happened.  As the drm developers
> > do this a lot, they have been putting the "cherry picked from" line in the
> > patch because they can not merge between branches and keep the git id the
> > same.
> > 
> > So try using the '-x' option to 'git cherry-pick' next time?
> 
> I can do that, but historically, I've gotten a lot of flack for that
> because the commit doesn't exist in Linus' tree yet at that point as
> the merge window hasn't opened yet.

I totally agree, and would argue that this is NOT the way to do it
either.  But it seems like this is what the i915 developers have been
doing for a few years now and honestly, it's better than nothing.

But I would like a real solution here, this gets very annoying every
-rc1 cycle for the DRM subsystem.  You all are the only ones with this
problem for some strange reason :(

greg k-h