From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Dirk Brandewie <dirk.brandewie@gmail.com>
Cc: dirk.j.brandewie@intel.com,
        "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] intel_pstate updates for v3.14-rcX
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 01:43:24 +0100
Message-ID: <2826539.Rd6WiyZhYe@vostro.rjw.lan>
User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/3.13.0+; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <5304F76C.1070500@intel.com>
References: <1392228067-14817-1-git-send-email-dirk.j.brandewie@intel.com> <2254366.ixXkMqbYNC@vostro.rjw.lan> <5304F76C.1070500@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:26:52 AM Dirk Brandewie wrote:
> 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@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?
> 
> I misspoke these are not stable material

OK

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