Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: compute wait_ioctl timeout correctly

From: Daniel Vetter
Date: Thu Dec 04 2014 - 13:51:25 EST

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:16 PM, John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 6:42 PM, John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Sigh. So you're going to make me write a separate patch that moves it over?
>> We've written it already, Imre posted the link to the old discussion:
>> But if the first attempt doesn't sufficiently stick I tend to chase
>> the patches any more. But if you want to resurrect this I could ping
>> Imre and ask him to pick it up again or you could rebase his patches.
> Well, last I saw the initial patch was buggy, no? I don't think I saw
> it being resubmitted.

I didn't see your reply in that thread nor in the v2 follow up at Maybe I missed
it, but response seems to have been lukewarm overall.

>>> But still, I do see our change broke you here, so I'm not going to object.
>> Ok, thanks I'll pull this in through drm-intel for 3.19 (3.18 is kinda
>> done already I guess) with cc: stable.
> You probably should submit it for 3.18 and let Linus decide if its too
> late. I've already gotten yelled at by Ingo for pushing patches in the
> merge window that cc stable. Even if its out of a desire to let the
> patches get wider testing, its something of a hot-button item for
> folks. :)

Oh I know, but if you count your regression rate in bugs-per-day you
end up with different standards ;-)
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 -
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at