Re: [PATCH 0/5] intel_pstate updates for v3.14-rcX

[Dirk Brandewie]

On 02/18/2014 04:53 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx <javascript:;>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > From: Dirk Brandewie <dirk.j.brandewie@xxxxxxxxx <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?

I misspoke these are not 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

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/