On Tue, 29 Oct 2013, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Oh right, I've forgotten that between the review and writing the mail
> ;-) I guess we could try to bend the stable rules a bit and just
> submit all 6. It's a regression fix after all, and at least personally
> I prefer the most minimal backports to a
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Ilija Hadzic
wrote:
>
>>> The actual fix is implemented in patch #6; preceding
>>> 5 patches are necessary prerequisites.
>>
>>
>> Hm, I don't really see why patches 1,2&4 are required. If we reorder them
>> to the end of the series as follow-up cleanups then we'd
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:09:40AM -0400, Ilija Hadzic wrote:
> The following patch series fixes the mutex corruption problem
> due to bit-copying of drm_crtc structure that happens when
> drm_crtc_helper_set_config function takes the error-recovery
> path. The patch series is the alternative solut
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Aside: The horribly ad-hoc calling convetions with some of the (x, y, fb,
> mode) parameters being set before calling a lower-level functions, some
> being restored, some of them being the old backup value and some of them
> being expected to be update
The following patch series fixes the mutex corruption problem
due to bit-copying of drm_crtc structure that happens when
drm_crtc_helper_set_config function takes the error-recovery
path. The patch series is the alternative solution for the
patch that was proposed and NACK-ed two weeks ago [1].
Th