On 5 April 2018 at 20:33, Mark Janes <mark.a.ja...@intel.com> wrote:
> Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 4 April 2018 at 22:50, Mark Janes <mark.a.ja...@intel.com> wrote:
>>> Leo Liu <leo....@amd.com> writes:
>>>> On 04/04/2018 12:40 PM, Mark Janes wrote:
>>>>> Leo Liu <leo....@amd.com> writes:
>>>>>> On the CI family, firmware requires the destory command have to be the
>>>>>> last command in the IB, moving feedback command after destroy is causing
>>>>>> issues on CI cards, so we have to keep the previous logic that moves
>>>>>> destroy back to the last command.
>>>>>> But as the original issue fixed previously, with the newer family like 
>>>>>> Vega10,
>>>>>> feedback command have to be included inside of the task info command 
>>>>>> along
>>>>>> with destroy command.
>>>>>> Fixes: 6d74cb25("radeon/vce: move destroy command before feedback 
>>>>>> command")
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Leo Liu <leo....@amd.com>
>>>>>> Cc: mesa-sta...@lists.freedesktop.org
>>>>> These tags seem ambiguous to me.  If this commit fixes a specific
>>>>> commit, then the patch should be applied only to stable branches which
>>>>> contain that commit.
>>>>> However, the mesa-stable CC caused this patch to be applied to 17.3,
>>>>> which does *not* contain the broken patch.
>>>>> Leo: did you intend for the mesa-stable CC to cause this patch to be
>>>>> applied to older stable branches?
>>>> I would like to have this patch apply to branches "17.2", "17.3",
>>>> "18.0", which got patch titled "radeon/vce: move destroy command before
>>>> feedback command"
>>> Ok, I understand now.  You cc'd a buggy patch to stable, and the bug was
>>> shipped in 17.3.1.
>> May I suggest phrasing things less personally. Mistakes happen, so
>> let's work in providing suggestions for improvement as opposed to "you
>> did X/Y".
> Thank you for the feedback.  I was trying to state the facts, but I
> understand how this could be read as a criticism.
Does that mean you tested radeon/vce and observed the breakage?

> As you say, mistakes happen -- and when they happen on the stable
> branches, there is very little to protect the end users.  Could we
> enhance automation to prevent this situation?  For example:
Consistent testing/reporting is needed. I believe I've mentioned if before:

You are the only one who consistently provides feedback about the state.
There have been individuals to report, while I'm very grateful these
reports are very rare and far between.

Approx 4 years ago Carl suggested another alternative. Roughly put:

Driver specific patches are _omitted_ unless team member has
explicitly tested them.
Needless to say plan did not go forward - see the whole thread [1].

One thing that it had in common with recent discussion is a
tester/frontman/maintainer/etc for each team.

Having such a person alongside the actual testing is optional, yet
_highly_ recommended.

As you know Intel's team is the largest one, perhaps as big as all the
others combined.
So expecting the same amount of manpower and time dedication is impossible.


[1] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2014-July/062992.html
mesa-dev mailing list

Reply via email to