Cc: Greg
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Ville Syrjälä ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 04:44:54PM +0000, alexander.levin@verizon.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 01:08:05PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 02:45:43AM +0000, alexander.levin@verizon.com wrote:
From: Ville Syrjälä ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com
[ Upstream commit 1be4d3793d5a93daddcd9be657c429b38ad750a3 ]
The watermark should never exceed the FIFO size, so we need to check against the current FIFO size instead of the theoretical maximum when we clamp the level 0 watermark.
Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com Link: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__patchwork.freedesktop.or... Reviewed-by: Maarten Lankhorst maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin alexander.levin@verizon.com
Why are these patches being proposed for stable? They're not straight up fixes for known issues, and there's always a chance that something will break. Who is doing the qa on this?
Hi Ville,
They were selected automatically as part of a new process we're trying out. If you disagree with the selection I'd be happy to drop it.
How does that automatic process decide that a patch should be backported?
drm and i915 are very fast moving targets so unintended side effects from backported patches is a real possibility. So I would recommend against backporting anything that isn't fixing a real issue affecting users. We do try to add the cc:stable to such patches.
Agreed.
First, I think an automatic backport process is against the stable kernel rules (e.g. "It must fix a real bug that bothers people").
Second, we can't and won't take any responsibility for backports we didn't indicate with Cc: stable, a Fixes: tag, or a specific backport request.
If you think there's a commit that should be backported and is known to fix a user visible issue (as per the stable rules!), please check with us first.
BR, Jani.