Re: [Intel-gfx] The i915 stable patch marking is totally broken

2017-04-12 Thread Greg KH
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 02:48:55PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 07:49:59AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Greg KH > > wrote: > > > Why don't the maintainers know which tree to put them in when they are > > > submitted? As an example, if I get

Re: [Intel-gfx] The i915 stable patch marking is totally broken

2017-04-12 Thread Greg KH
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 07:49:59AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > Why don't the maintainers know which tree to put them in when they are > > submitted? As an example, if I get a patch that needs to go to Linus, I > > put it in my usb-linus branc

Re: [Intel-gfx] The i915 stable patch marking is totally broken

2017-03-16 Thread Greg KH
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 04:40:01PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Thu, 16 Mar 2017, Greg KH wrote: > > And again, you all are the only ones that have this issue. You might > > find a handfull of patches for stable that come in twice in the rest of > > the kernel, but your "little" driver dwarfs t

Re: [Intel-gfx] The i915 stable patch marking is totally broken

2017-03-16 Thread Jani Nikula
On Thu, 16 Mar 2017, Greg KH wrote: > And again, you all are the only ones that have this issue. You might > find a handfull of patches for stable that come in twice in the rest of > the kernel, but your "little" driver dwarfs that by an order of > magnitude. I really think you are doing it wron

Re: [Intel-gfx] The i915 stable patch marking is totally broken

2017-03-16 Thread Greg KH
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 08:38:30AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 07:40:50AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Greg KH > > wrote: > > > So if a commit says "cherry-pick", I guess I can always assume it's safe > > > to add, right

Re: [Intel-gfx] The i915 stable patch marking is totally broken

2017-03-16 Thread Daniel Vetter
Hi Greg, On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 07:40:50AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > So if a commit says "cherry-pick", I guess I can always assume it's safe > > to add, right? If not, _then_ I have to run the "search backwards" > > logic, right? > > > >

Re: [Intel-gfx] The i915 stable patch marking is totally broken

2017-03-13 Thread Jani Nikula
On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Our cherry-pick sha1 work exactly like yours: They don't make sense > when you only look at the tree a patch has been cherry-picked _to_, > since they're the sha1 from the tree they've been cherry-picked > _from_. When you clone a fresh copy of your stab

Re: [Intel-gfx] The i915 stable patch marking is totally broken

2017-03-12 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Greg KH wrote: >> So I blame this on flight level 350, but we discussed this at kernel >> summit. Every patch we cherry-pick over comes with a "cherry-picked from >> $sha1" line, as long as you ignore any such sha1 as duplicate you won't >> see the same patch twic

Re: [Intel-gfx] The i915 stable patch marking is totally broken

2017-03-12 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Greg KH wrote: > Why don't the maintainers know which tree to put them in when they are > submitted? As an example, if I get a patch that needs to go to Linus, I > put it in my usb-linus branch, and when it hits a -rc release, I then > merge that -rc back into my

Re: [Intel-gfx] The i915 stable patch marking is totally broken

2017-03-12 Thread Greg KH
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 09:46:21PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 08:44:40PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > Hi Daniel and Jani and other members of the i915-commit-cabal, > > > > I've mentioned this a few times to Daniel in the past (like at the last > > kernel summit), but the w

Re: [Intel-gfx] The i915 stable patch marking is totally broken

2017-03-12 Thread Greg KH
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 06:11:12AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > On 13 March 2017 at 05:44, Greg KH wrote: > > Hi Daniel and Jani and other members of the i915-commit-cabal, > > > > I've mentioned this a few times to Daniel in the past (like at the last > > kernel summit), but the way you all are ha

Re: [Intel-gfx] The i915 stable patch marking is totally broken

2017-03-12 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 08:44:40PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > Hi Daniel and Jani and other members of the i915-commit-cabal, > > I've mentioned this a few times to Daniel in the past (like at the last > kernel summit), but the way you all are handling the tagging of patches > for inclusion in stable

Re: [Intel-gfx] The i915 stable patch marking is totally broken

2017-03-12 Thread Dave Airlie
On 13 March 2017 at 05:44, Greg KH wrote: > Hi Daniel and Jani and other members of the i915-commit-cabal, > > I've mentioned this a few times to Daniel in the past (like at the last > kernel summit), but the way you all are handling the tagging of patches > for inclusion in stable kernel releases

[Intel-gfx] The i915 stable patch marking is totally broken

2017-03-12 Thread Greg KH
Hi Daniel and Jani and other members of the i915-commit-cabal, I've mentioned this a few times to Daniel in the past (like at the last kernel summit), but the way you all are handling the tagging of patches for inclusion in stable kernel releases is totally broken and causing me no end of headache