[Mesa-dev] [Mesa-stable] [PATCH] radeon/vce: move feedback command inside of destroy function

[Mark Janes]

Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> writes:

> On 4 April 2018 at 22:50, Mark Janes <mark.a.janes at intel.com> wrote:
>> Leo Liu <leo.liu at amd.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 04/04/2018 12:40 PM, Mark Janes wrote:
>>>> Leo Liu <leo.liu at amd.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On the CI family, firmware requires the destory command have to be the
>>>>> last command in the IB, moving feedback command after destroy is causing
>>>>> issues on CI cards, so we have to keep the previous logic that moves
>>>>> destroy back to the last command.
>>>>>
>>>>> But as the original issue fixed previously, with the newer family like Vega10,
>>>>> feedback command have to be included inside of the task info command along
>>>>> with destroy command.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: 6d74cb25("radeon/vce: move destroy command before feedback command")
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Leo Liu <leo.liu at amd.com>
>>>>> Cc: mesa-stable at lists.freedesktop.org
>>>> These tags seem ambiguous to me.  If this commit fixes a specific
>>>> commit, then the patch should be applied only to stable branches which
>>>> contain that commit.
>>>>
>>>> However, the mesa-stable CC caused this patch to be applied to 17.3,
>>>> which does *not* contain the broken patch.
>>>>
>>>> Leo: did you intend for the mesa-stable CC to cause this patch to be
>>>> applied to older stable branches?
>>> I would like to have this patch apply to branches "17.2", "17.3",
>>> "18.0", which got patch titled "radeon/vce: move destroy command before
>>> feedback command"
>>
>> Ok, I understand now.  You cc'd a buggy patch to stable, and the bug was
>> shipped in 17.3.1.
>>
> May I suggest phrasing things less personally. Mistakes happen, so
> let's work in providing suggestions for improvement as opposed to "you
> did X/Y".

Thank you for the feedback.  I was trying to state the facts, but I
understand how this could be read as a criticism.

As you say, mistakes happen -- and when they happen on the stable
branches, there is very little to protect the end users.  Could we
enhance automation to prevent this situation?  For example:

 - bin/.cherry-blacklist lists commits that should never be shipped on
   stable.

 - bisected bugs -> update the blacklist

I can't think of a way to automate that, but it would have highlighted
one of the instance where we shipped a regression in a 17.3 point
release.

> Aside from the normal stable/fixes tag, people can nominate patches by
> sending them to the list [1].
> We had patch authors, other developers and even 'random' members of
> the public to use the last method.
>
> HTH
> Emil
>
> https://www.mesa3d.org/submittingpatches.html#nominations
> _______________________________________________
> mesa-stable mailing list
> mesa-stable at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-stable