Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/5] intel_pstate updates for v3.14-rcX | Date | Wed, 19 Feb 2014 01:53:22 +0100 |
| |
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 04:35:26 PM Dirk Brandewie wrote: > On 02/18/2014 04:43 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 04:24:02 PM Dirk Brandewie wrote: > >> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote: > >> > >>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 03:53:48 PM Dirk Brandewie wrote: > >>>> On 02/18/2014 02:27 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 12:29:54 PM Dirk Brandewie wrote: > >>>>>> Hi Rafael, > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 02/12/2014 10:01 AM, dirk.brandewie@gmail.com <javascript:;>wrote: > >>>>>>> From: Dirk Brandewie <dirk.j.brandewie@intel.com <javascript:;>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Based on v3.14-rc2 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Patch 1 removes energy reporting the patch from Maurizio Lambardi > >>>>>>> intel_pstate: fix race condition in intel_pstate_init() can be > >>> dropped. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Any reason why patches 2-5 did not make rc3 other than timing? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Patches 2/3 can easily wait for v3.15.x > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Patches 4/5 fix bugs that are in the wild. > >>>>> > >>>>> I asked you about them, but you didn't reply: > >>>>> > >>>>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=139225158531023&w=4 > >>>>> > >>>>> Again, do patches [4-5/5] depend on [2-3/5]? > >>>>> > >>>>> If not, I can queue them up for -rc4. > >>>> > >>>> All the patches are independent of one another. > >>>> > >>>> Patch 2 is straight cleanup no functional change but reduces the memory > >>>> footprint slightly. > >>>> > >>>> Patch 3 is a bug that will only be seen when the PID is reset at init > >>> time > >>>> or when a change is made to PID params via debugfs. The problem will > >>> only > >>>> exist for one sample time since it is setting last_err in the PID. > >>>> > >>>> Patch 4-5 are bugs found during Baytrail-T testing > >>> > >>> Are there any pointers to bug reports that may be included in the > >>> changelogs > >>> of these? > >> > >> > >> No. I got the reports via email. I could probably get the reporters to > >> file bugzillas. > > > > It would be good to add information about what machines are affected > > and what the user-visible problems are to the changelogs for future > > reference. > > > > And do we want these two patches in -stable? If so, what -stable series should > > they go into? > > Patch 2 v3.10+ > > Patch 3 v3.12+
You said [2-3/5] were cleanups, so why do you think they are -stable material?
> Patch 4/5 v3.13+
OK
What about the bug information? Can you please point me to the e-mail threads where the bugs were discussed at least?
Rafael
| |