Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Mathias =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=F6hlich?= <Mathias.Froehlich@gmx.net>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        Leo Li <sunpeng.li@amd.com>,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.0 072/246] drm/amd/display: Fix reference counting for struct dc_sink.
Date:   Thu, 18 Apr 2019 06:46:41 +0200
Message-ID: <12751920.KfR1oLxoXd@notebook.internal>
In-Reply-To: <20190415105029.GC9397@kroah.com>
References: <20190404084619.236418459@linuxfoundation.org> <4990954.l4Ku8jBaGM@notebook.internal> <20190415105029.GC9397@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Greg,

On Monday, 15 April 2019 12:50:29 CEST Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 07:12:47AM +0200, Mathias Fr=F6hlich wrote:
> > Greg,
> >=20
> > as I mentioned in the commit message, I saw more fixes to that area in =
Alex
> > Deuchers queue when I fed that to Alex. There is one fix that I can thi=
nk of
> > that interacts with my fixes. Means, we may get unwanted side effects o=
f my
> > patch without the fix mentioned below. With that below patch also selec=
ted,
> > I think we should be ok for stable.
> > Alex, AMD people, your opinion?
> >=20
> > The one that I can spot not already in linux-5.0.y is:
> >=20
> > commit 3f01f098a4e2ef30ef628497c43a3d568e720376
> > Author: Jerry (Fangzhi) Zuo <Jerry.Zuo@amd.com>
> > Date:   Thu Jan 24 11:46:49 2019 -0500
> >=20
> >     drm/amd/display: Clear dc_sink after it gets released
> >    =20
> >     [Why]
> >     The dc_sink was released but the pointer on the aconnector was
> >     not cleared.
> >    =20
> >     [How]
> >     Clear it.
>=20
> This patch does not apply to the 5.0.y tree, so I can not queue it up :(

Sounds plausible.
And thanks for trying!

I had now the chance to test the 5.0.7 kernel tree as is including just
my patch on the box in question. I can say that it works as expected with 5=
=2E0.7
and since I did also not hear complaints on the lists I hope we are good as=
 is!

Many thanks!

best

Mathias