Re: Autoselect patches for stable (Was: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.9 36/56] drm/i915: Fix the level 0 max_wm hack on VLV/CHV)

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 05:55:29PM +, Emil Velikov wrote: >On 21 November 2017 at 15:07, wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:21:52AM +, Emil Velikov wrote: >>> - Document the autoselect process >>>Information about about What, Why, and [ideally] How -

Re: Autoselect patches for stable (Was: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.9 36/56] drm/i915: Fix the level 0 max_wm hack on VLV/CHV)

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:09:33PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: >The root of the concern seems to be around how the stable process >currently works and how auto-selection plays into that. When Greg >sends out the RC, the default model of "if nobody objects, this patch >will get included in the next

Re: Autoselect patches for stable (Was: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.9 36/56] drm/i915: Fix the level 0 max_wm hack on VLV/CHV)

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:21:52AM +, Emil Velikov wrote: > - Document the autoselect process >Information about about What, Why, and [ideally] How - analogous to >the normal stable nominations. >Insert reference to the process in the patch notification email. I agree with this one, and it'll

Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.9 36/56] drm/i915: Fix the level 0 max_wm hack on VLV/CHV

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 03:01:08PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: >I still have no idea how this autoselect picks up patches that do *not* >have cc: stable nor Fixes: from us. What information do you have that we >don't for making that call? I think there's a difference in views about the stable tag

Re: 4.1 EOL

I've cc'ed some folks in hopes to get this resolved upstream. Either way, 4.1's EoL was previously moved to about 6 months from now, so hopefully we'll have more than enough time to get this resolved. On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 10:13:55PM +, Tuncer Ayaz wrote: >The predicament I'm in on my