On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 04:23:19PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Jani Nikula <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I'm already scripting my fixes backports quite a bit, and frankly don't
> > really manually backport anything that doesn't apply cleanly. I'm
> > thinking of automating some "failed to backport" reporting to authors,
> > not unlike the failed stable backport reports.
> >
> > This is a manual report that the following commits have been marked as
> > Cc: stable or fixing something in v4.11-rc1, but failed to cherry-pick
> > to drm-intel-fixes. Please see if they are worth backporting, and please
> > do so if they are.
> >
> > Feedback about the idea of this reporting is also appreciated.
>
> Refreshed list as of today:
>
> bd784b7cc41a ("drm/i915: Avoid rcu_barrier() from reclaim paths (shrinker)")
Done.
> 3fc03069bc6e ("drm/i915: make context status notifier head be per engine")
Done.
> 2e8f9d322948 ("drm/i915: Restore engine->submit_request before unwedging")
Don't care; I consider this is an debug-only feature. The expected
response to a wedged machine by a user are curse words followed by a
reboot.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
