[PATCH AUTOSEL 4.19 044/167] drm/amdgpu: validate user pitch alignment
sashal at kernel.org
Tue Sep 3 20:01:39 UTC 2019
On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 07:03:47PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 06:40:43PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>> On 2019-09-03 6:23 p.m., Sasha Levin wrote:
>> > From: Yu Zhao <yuzhao at google.com>
>> > [ Upstream commit 89f23b6efef554766177bf51aa754bce14c3e7da ]
>> Hold your horses!
>> This commit and c4a32b266da7bb702e60381ca0c35eaddbc89a6c had to be
>> reverted, as they caused regressions. See commits
>> 25ec429e86bb790e40387a550f0501d0ac55a47c &
>> 92b0730eaf2d549fdfb10ecc8b71f34b9f472c12 .
>> This isn't bolstering confidence in how these patches are selected...
>The patch _itself_ said to be backported to the stable trees from 4.2
>and newer. Why wouldn't we be confident in doing this?
>If the patch doesn't want to be backported, then do not add the cc:
>stable line to it...
This patch was picked because it has a stable tag, which you presumably
saw as your Reviewed-by tag is in the patch. This is why it was
backported; it doesn't take AI to backport patches tagged for stable...
The revert of this patch, however:
1. Didn't have a stable tag.
2. Didn't have a "Fixes:" tag.
3. Didn't have the usual "the reverts commit ..." string added by git
when one does a revert.
Which is why we still kick patches for review, even though they had a
stable tag, just so people could take a look and confirm we're not
missing anything - like we did here.
I'm not sure what you expected me to do differently here.
More information about the dri-devel