linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.16 012/114] drm/i915: Exit cherryview_irq

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 14 Jun 2016 16:00:18 +0300
From:	Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
	Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>,
	Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...el.com>,
	Antti Koskipää 
	<antti.koskipaa@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.16 012/114] drm/i915: Exit cherryview_irq_handler()
 after one pass

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 01:48:47PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 15:08 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:37:34PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 13:47 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 07:36:37PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > > > 3.16.36-rc1 review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > > > 
> > > > Do not backport this one. It'll break things.
> > > 
> > > But this has not been re-reverted in mainline, has it?  Is it that
> > > 3.16-stable would need more changes backported to make this work, or is
> > > mainline currently broken on Cherryview hardware?
> > 
> > No, as of 4.7 we have a proper fix, but it's a bit too big to backport
> > (see [1]). I think 4.6.x is still busted, but Greg said he'd revert
> > this broken patch there, so it should get fixed eventually.
> > 
> > OTOH CHV wasn't even officially supported until maybe 4.1, so whatever
> > you do in 3.16 shouldn't really matter.
> 
> OK, I've dropped this.
> 
> > It's a bit tedious having to block the same patch from different stable
> > trees over and over again. It would be nice it there would be some kind
> > of stable blacklist you guys could share so that we wouldn't have to
> > repeat this dance with every stable maintainer...
> 
> Sorry about that; I do try to look for things like that on the stable
> list but it's too high volume for me to keep up with most of the time.

I understand. Have the same problem myself often enough. Which is why I
think a blacklist type of thing might be the better option. But maybe
cc:stable mislabeling doesn't happen often enough to warrant it.

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC