From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Zhenyu Wang Subject: Re: [PULL] more gvt-next-fixes for 4.17 Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 10:45:39 +0800 Message-ID: <20180328024539.jaqammvy6ii5ndxt@zhen-hp.sh.intel.com> References: <20180327083942.zahc6q2szcjkrqzn@zhen-hp.sh.intel.com> <152215814848.7428.17792518887701901268@jlahtine-desk.ger.corp.intel.com> Reply-To: Zhenyu Wang Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1218445106==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <152215814848.7428.17792518887701901268@jlahtine-desk.ger.corp.intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" To: Joonas Lahtinen Cc: Jani Nikula , intel-gfx , "Yuan, Hang" , "Lv, Zhiyuan" , "Vivi, Rodrigo" , intel-gvt-dev List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org --===============1218445106== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="n6tczcufoqnb2mrr" Content-Disposition: inline --n6tczcufoqnb2mrr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2018.03.27 16:42:28 +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > Quoting Zhenyu Wang (2018-03-27 11:39:42) > >=20 > > Hi, Joonas > >=20 > > Here's this week's gvt-next-fixes queued for 4.17. One notable change > > is to revert previous workaround for gvt context preemption, now it > > has full support for preemption now.=20 >=20 > I've pulled the patches, but this revert sounds fishy. Is it something > that should have been done together with a commit in a batch introduced > to 4.17? To me, this sounds much like a feature patch, "enable > pre-emption on GVT context" is even written in the tag. >=20 > So I'm inclined to drop this patch from -fixes pull. > The dependent fix has already been queued for 4.17 as commit 702791f7f204 ("drm/i915: add schedule out notification of preempted but completed reques= t"), and before we could revert previous workaround, we had a regression issue w= hich was later resolved, so this revert was delayed for regression verification = and validation. And now it has passed our full testing, so I consider to push i= t for 4.17 instead of still keeping previous workaround... > Is there some specific reason why you don't use Fixes: tagging to > make it easier to track which patches the fixes apply to, if there are > some? yeah, sorry, that's missed. Will fix that against workaround commit and re-= send this pull. Will that be fine for you? thanks --=20 Open Source Technology Center, Intel ltd. $gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 4D781827 --n6tczcufoqnb2mrr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EARECAB0WIQTXuabgHDW6LPt9CICxBBozTXgYJwUCWrsB0gAKCRCxBBozTXgY J+3dAJwLs125/8TNb7qJlNJt2lVf8nrGswCfZZ3xj8Lr16Qu22yGlIDz6WontZ8= =9Fz5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --n6tczcufoqnb2mrr-- --===============1218445106== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KSW50ZWwtZ2Z4 IG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdApJbnRlbC1nZnhAbGlzdHMuZnJlZWRlc2t0b3Aub3JnCmh0dHBzOi8vbGlz dHMuZnJlZWRlc2t0b3Aub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vaW50ZWwtZ2Z4Cg== --===============1218445106==--