[Nouveau] [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/5] Fix deadlock on runtime suspend in DRM drivers

[Lukas Wunner]

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 12:48:04PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 06:38:44AM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 09:58:43AM -0500, Sean Paul wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 03:43:56PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > > On 2018-02-14 03:08 PM, Sean Paul wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:26:35AM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> > > > >> Op 14-02-18 om 09:46 schreef Lukas Wunner:
> > > > >>> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:38:28AM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > > > >>>> Fix a deadlock on hybrid graphics laptops that's been present since 2013:
> > > > >>> This series has been reviewed, consent has been expressed by the most
> > > > >>> interested parties, patch [1/5] which touches files outside drivers/gpu
> > > > >>> has been acked and I've just out a v2 addressing the only objection
> > > > >>> raised.  My plan is thus to wait another two days for comments and,
> > > > >>> barring further objections, push to drm-misc this weekend.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> However I'm struggling with the decision whether to push to next or
> > > > >>> fixes.  The series is marked for stable, however the number of
> > > > >>> affected machines is limited and for an issue that's been present
> > > > >>> for 5 years it probably doesn't matter if it soaks another two months
> > > > >>> in linux-next befor it gets backported.  Hence I tend to err on the
> > > > >>> side of caution and push to next, however a case could be made that
> > > > >>> fixes is more appropriate.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I'm lacking experience making such decisions and would be interested
> > > > >>> to learn how you'd handle this.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I would say fixes, it doesn't look particularly scary. :)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Agreed. If it's good enough for stable, it's good enough for -fixes!
> > > > 
> > > > It's not that simple, is it? Fast-tracking patches (some of which appear
> > > > to be untested) to stable without an immediate cause for urgency seems
> > > > risky to me.
> > > 
> > > /me should be more careful what he says
> > > 
> > > Given where we are in the release cycle, it's barely a fast track.
> > > If these go in -fixes, they'll get in -rc2 and will have plenty of
> > > time to bake. If we were at rc5, it might be a different story.
> > 
> > The patches are marked for stable though, so if they go in through
> > drm-misc-fixes, they may appear in stable kernels before 4.16-final
> > is out.  Greg picks up patches once they're in Linus' tree, though
> > often with a delay of a few days or weeks.  If they go in through
> > drm-misc-next, they're guaranteed not to appear in *any* release
> > before 4.16-final is out.
> > 
> > This allows for differentiation between no-brainer stable fixes that
> > can be sent immediately and scarier, but similarly important stable
> > fixes that should soak for a while.  I'm not sure which category
> > this series belongs to, though it's true what Maarten says, it's
> > not *that* grave a change.
> 
> If you're this concerned about them, then pls do _not_ put cc: stable on
> the patches. Instead get them merged through -fixes (or maybe even -next),
> and once they're sufficiently tested, send a mail to stable@ asking for
> ane explicit backport.

I'm not concerned about them, but would have erred on the side of caution.
However consensus seems to have been that they're sufficiently unscary to
push to -fixes.  Do you disagree with that decision, if so, why?  Can we
amend the dim docs to codify guidelines whether to push to -fixes or -next?
I allowed 1 week for comments, now you're returning from vacation and seem
to be unhappy, was 1 week too short?

Thanks,

Lukas