Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 3 Sep 2019 16:01:39 -0400 | From | Sasha Levin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.19 044/167] drm/amdgpu: validate user pitch alignment |
| |
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@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.
-- Thanks, Sasha
| |