Hi Sasha,
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 5:45 PM Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org wrote:
Hi,
[This is an automated email]
Where did you get this patch from? Since stable needs patches merged on Linus tree, shouldn't your scripts run to try backporting only patches from there?
Thanks, Rodrigo.
This commit has been processed because it contains a "Fixes:" tag, fixing commit: 88a0d9606aff drm/i915/vbt: Parse and use the new field with PSR2 TP2/3 wakeup time.
The bot has tested the following trees: v5.2.1. v5.2.1: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies: 231dcffc234f ("drm/i915/bios: add BDB block comments before definitions") 843444ed1301 ("drm/i915/bios: sort BDB block definitions using block ID") f87f6599c843 ("drm/i915/bios: reserve struct bdb_ prefix for BDB blocks")
NOTE: The patch will not be queued to stable trees until it is upstream.
How should we proceed with this patch?
-- Thanks, Sasha _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 01:42:45PM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
Hi Sasha,
Hello!
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 5:45 PM Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org wrote:
Hi,
[This is an automated email]
Where did you get this patch from? Since stable needs patches merged
This bot grabs them from various mailing lists.
on Linus tree, shouldn't your scripts run to try backporting only patches from there?
There's a note a few lines down that says:
"NOTE: The patch will not be queued to stable trees until it is upstream."
Otherwise, no, there's no rule that says we can't look at patches before they are upstream. We can't queue them up, but we sure can poke them.
The reasoning behind this is that it's easier to get replies (and backports) from folks who are actively working on the patch now, rather than a few weeks later when Greg sends his "FAILED:" mails and gets ignored because said folks have moved on.
-- Thanks, Sasha
On Jul 30, 2019, at 2:48 PM, Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 01:42:45PM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
Hi Sasha,
Hello!
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 5:45 PM Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org wrote:
Hi,
[This is an automated email]
Where did you get this patch from? Since stable needs patches merged
This bot grabs them from various mailing lists.
on Linus tree, shouldn't your scripts run to try backporting only patches from there?
There's a note a few lines down that says:
"NOTE: The patch will not be queued to stable trees until it is upstream."
Otherwise, no, there's no rule that says we can't look at patches before they are upstream. We can't queue them up, but we sure can poke them.
The reasoning behind this is that it's easier to get replies (and backports) from folks who are actively working on the patch now,
This is a very good reason indeed...
rather than a few weeks later when Greg sends his "FAILED:" mails and gets ignored because said folks have moved on.
however this could potentially cause extra work and confusion like we can see on this thread where the developer immediately responded to your email and sent the backported patch to the stable mailing list.
Maybe it is just because we are used to Greg's failed to apply email or maybe it was just a matter of education...
But I wonder if there isn't something that could be improved on the automated message here. Some message clearly stating:
- No action required at this point - you can work to prepare the backport in advance - don't send it to stable before requested by Greg
Anyway, just few ideas. I just reached you to understand the flow and I'm already happy to understand what happened here.
Thanks a lot for that, Rodrigo.
-- Thanks, Sasha _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 05:14:38PM +0000, Vivi, Rodrigo wrote:
On Jul 30, 2019, at 2:48 PM, Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org wrote: rather than a few weeks later when Greg sends his "FAILED:" mails and gets ignored because said folks have moved on.
however this could potentially cause extra work and confusion like we can see on this thread where the developer immediately responded to your email and sent the backported patch to the stable mailing list.
Maybe it is just because we are used to Greg's failed to apply email or maybe it was just a matter of education...
I think that there were a few things here that ended up causing confusion, but I'm not quite sure how to address them.
I think that stable should have a clearer rules as to how backports should be sent. Right now we weed through mails to stable@ to figure out what are backport requests, what are upstream patches, and what are just confused folks.
We have gotten pretty good at this, but still not perfect...
But I wonder if there isn't something that could be improved on the automated message here. Some message clearly stating:
- No action required at this point
One *could* send a backport at this point. My understanding is that when Greg sees a failure to apply a commit tagged for stable he'll grep through his mailbox, hopefully finding the backport as a result of this bot bugging people.
- you can work to prepare the backport in advance
- don't send it to stable before requested by Greg
Why not? I think it's fine to put it on the mailing list, specially under the same thread, and let us deal with it after the patch goes upstream.
-- Thanks, Sasha
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Rodrigo Vivi -
Sasha Levin -
Vivi, Rodrigo