[PATCH] dma-buf/sw_sync: Synchronize signal vs syncpt free

[Daniel Vetter]

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 09:46:41PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 07:24:15PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > Hi Sasha,
> > 
> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 07:05:47PM +0000, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > [This is an automated email]
> > > 
> > > This commit has been processed because it contains a "Fixes:" tag,
> > > fixing commit: d3862e44daa7 dma-buf/sw-sync: Fix locking around sync_timeline lists.
> > > 
> > > The bot has tested the following trees: v5.2.8, v4.19.66, v4.14.138, v4.9.189.
> > > 
> > > v5.2.8: Build OK!
> > > v4.19.66: Build OK!
> > > v4.14.138: Build OK!
> > > v4.9.189: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
> > >     Unable to calculate
> > > 
> > > 
> > > NOTE: The patch will not be queued to stable trees until it is upstream.
> > > 
> > > How should we proceed with this patch?
> > 
> > The backporting instruction has an explicit # v4.14+ in there, so failure
> > to apply to older kernels is expected.
> > 
> > Can you perhaps teach this trick to your script perhaps? Iirc we're using
> > the official format even.
> 
> Hey Daniel,
> 
> The script knows how to read stable tags :)
> 
> It tested out 4.9 because the commit also has a fixes tag pointing to
> d3862e44daa7 ("dma-buf/sw-sync: Fix locking around sync_timeline
> lists."), which was backported to 4.9.

Ah makes sense, might be good to add a bit of output explaining that.

> Should this not be backported to 4.9, even though the commit it fixes is
> there?

I guess it might actually be needed there.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch