[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKMK7uFtZm5UDRTqaNp4X--dxSxwkMgPE5OU9Vo_K0L+G=ccvw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 18:45:59 +0200
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
To: Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>,
Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@...el.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jörg Otte <jrg.otte@...il.com>,
Dave Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [3.14.0-rc4] regression: drm FIFO underruns
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:18 PM, Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com> wrote:
> Please don't make things more prominent if the fixes can't be merged
> without rewriting the world,
>
> Distros have auto reporting tools for the major backtrace warnings,
> and releasing kernels with unfixable ones in it make it hard to know
> what is real and what isn't.
Fully agreed if we can't fix them. But we also need to strike some
balance for otherwise we can never enable we self-tests. And I
absolutely want those enable to have the best possible regression
testing coverage. E.g. every time we add a substantial amount of new
checks to the modeset state checker it takes 1-2 releases to settle
all the fallout. But we're backporting all the fixes, except when
they're too invasive (in which case we disable the check temporarily
or restrict it).
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists