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)

2017-11-22 Thread alexander . levin
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 - analogous to >>>the normal stable no

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)

2017-11-21 Thread alexander . levin
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 st

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)

2017-11-21 Thread Emil Velikov
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 - analogous to >>the normal stable nominations. >>Insert reference to the process in the patch notificat

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)

2017-11-21 Thread Greg KH
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:09:33PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 10:07 AM, 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 - analogous to > >>the normal st

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)

2017-11-21 Thread Josh Boyer
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 10:07 AM, 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 - analogous to >>the normal stable nominations. >>Insert reference to the process in the patch notif

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)

2017-11-21 Thread alexander . levin
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: [Intel-gfx] 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)

2017-11-21 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 07:39:51AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > On 20 November 2017 at 23:13, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:39:31PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:21:52AM +, Emil Velikov wrote: > >> > Hi all, > >> > > >> > Since I'm going sligh

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)

2017-11-21 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 08:58:51AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:39:31PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Of course our CI is open, so if someone is supremely bored and wants to > > backport more stuff for drm/i915, they could do that. But atm it doesn't > > happen, and then hav

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)

2017-11-20 Thread Greg KH
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:39:31PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Of course our CI is open, so if someone is supremely bored and wants to > backport more stuff for drm/i915, they could do that. But atm it doesn't > happen, and then having to deal with the fallout is not really great (like > I said,

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)

2017-11-20 Thread Dave Airlie
On 20 November 2017 at 23:13, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:39:31PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:21:52AM +, Emil Velikov wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Since I'm going slightly off-topic, I've tweaked the subject line and >> > trimmed some of the

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)

2017-11-20 Thread Alex Deucher
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:39:31PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:21:52AM +, Emil Velikov wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Since I'm going slightly off-topic, I've tweaked the subject line and >> > trimmed some of

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)

2017-11-20 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:39:31PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:21:52AM +, Emil Velikov wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Since I'm going slightly off-topic, I've tweaked the subject line and > > trimmed some of the conversation. > > I believe everyone in the CC list might

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)

2017-11-20 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:21:52AM +, Emil Velikov wrote: > Hi all, > > Since I'm going slightly off-topic, I've tweaked the subject line and > trimmed some of the conversation. > I believe everyone in the CC list might be interested in the > following, yet feel free to adjust. > > Above all,

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)

2017-11-20 Thread Emil Velikov
Hi all, Since I'm going slightly off-topic, I've tweaked the subject line and trimmed some of the conversation. I believe everyone in the CC list might be interested in the following, yet feel free to adjust. Above all, I'd kindly ask everyone to skim through and draw their conclusions. If the id