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

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>]

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?

> 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