linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.9 36/56] drm/i915: Fix the level 0 max

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

Message-ID: <20171115164451.ogl3ku6qr3cfnbk7@sasha-lappy>
Date:   Wed, 15 Nov 2017 16:44:54 +0000
From:   alexander.levin@...izon.com
To:     Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.9 36/56] drm/i915: Fix the level 0 max_wm
 hack on VLV/CHV

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@...izon.com wrote:
>> From: Ville SyrjÃ¤lÃ¤ <ville.syrjala@...ux.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 SyrjÃ¤lÃ¤ <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>
>> Link: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__patchwork.freedesktop.org_patch_msgid_1480354637-2D14209-2D4-2Dgit-2Dsend-2Demail-2Dville.syrjala-40linux.intel.com&d=DwIDAw&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=bUtaaC9mlBij4OjEG_D-KPul_335azYzfC4Rjgomobo&m=iuPtUar-VEGbH1jmVH_UTr4C02X8fmjHUfNYix-Yc0Y&s=ha_F0zP3A1Aztp5S5e6_bqdhiuuPXhn0dRWQ58vv3Is&e=
>> Reviewed-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...izon.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.

-- 

Thanks,
Sasha