[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 10/12] drm/i915: TLB invalidation with MI_FLUSH_SW requires a post-sync op

[Jesse Barnes]

On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 16:49:42 +0200
Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> > Btw if you want to take this to its logical conclusion, we also
> > shouldn't be "fixing" issues that are obvious from code review but
> > people haven't hit in practice (this goes for a good chunk of the code
> > churn in our driver involving cleanups and fixes for potential
> > non-issues).  And that's not even including test case development for
> > any patch claiming it fixes anything.
> 
> And most of those actually go through dinq, at least if the exact
> impact is unclear and there's no testcase or bug to demonstrate the
> issue. My gripes here are purely for pushing too much w/a patches to
> -fixes, since both your patches and Ben's had regressions that hang
> machines. Hence my grumpiness.

Yeah, not sure why you were pushing them straight to -fixes in the
first place. :)  -fixes is just for known bug fixes that people are
hitting, not speculative ones, especially workarounds we know work in
theory but haven't applied to a specific bug.  So we agree there.  I'm
hoping at least some of the known w/a's will be found to fix a known
bug report, then we can push to -fixes and/or stable as appropriate.

Jesse