Greg KH
2023-Jan-28 17:51 UTC
[Nouveau] [PATCH] nouveau: explicitly wait on the fence in nouveau_bo_move_m2mf
On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 03:49:59PM +0100, Computer Enthusiastic wrote:> Hello, > > The patch "[Nouveau] [PATCH] nouveau: explicitly wait on the fence in > nouveau_bo_move_m2mf" [1] was marked for kernels v5.15+ and it was merged > upstream. > > The same patch [1] works with kernel 5.10.y, but it is not been merged > upstream so far. > > According to Karol Herbst suggestion [2], I'm sending this message to ask > for merging it into 5.10 kernel.We need to know the git commit id. And have you tested it on 5.10.y? And why are you stuck on 5.10.y for this type of hardware? Why not move to 5.15.y or 6.1.y? And as my bot says: <formletter> This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the stable kernel tree. Please read: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html for how to do this properly. </formletter> thanks, greg k-h
Salvatore Bonaccorso
2023-Jan-28 19:49 UTC
[Nouveau] [PATCH] nouveau: explicitly wait on the fence in nouveau_bo_move_m2mf
Hi Greg, I'm not the reporter, so would like to confirm him explicitly, but I believe I can give some context: On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 06:51:08PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:> On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 03:49:59PM +0100, Computer Enthusiastic wrote: > > Hello, > > > > The patch "[Nouveau] [PATCH] nouveau: explicitly wait on the fence in > > nouveau_bo_move_m2mf" [1] was marked for kernels v5.15+ and it was merged > > upstream. > > > > The same patch [1] works with kernel 5.10.y, but it is not been merged > > upstream so far. > > > > According to Karol Herbst suggestion [2], I'm sending this message to ask > > for merging it into 5.10 kernel. > > We need to know the git commit id. And have you tested it on 5.10.y? > And why are you stuck on 5.10.y for this type of hardware? Why not move > to 5.15.y or 6.1.y?This would be commit 6b04ce966a73 ("nouveau: explicitly wait on the fence in nouveau_bo_move_m2mf") in mainline, applied in 6.0-rc3 and backported to 5.19.6 and 5.15.64. Computer Enthusiastic, tested it on 5.10.y: https://lore.kernel.org/nouveau/CAHSpYy1mcTns0JS6eivjK82CZ9_ajSwH-H7gtDwCkNyfvihaAw at mail.gmail.com/ It was reported in Debian by the user originally as https://bugs.debian.org/989705#69 after updating to the 5.10.y series in Debian bullseye. I guess the user could move to the next stable release Debian bookworm, once it's released (it's currently in the last milestones to finalize, cf. https://release.debian.org/ but we are not yet there). In the next release this will be automatically be fixed indeed. Computer Enthusiastic, can you confirm please to Greg in particular the first questions, in particular to confirm the commit fixes the suspend issue? Regards, Salvatore
Maybe Matching Threads
- [PATCH] nouveau: explicitly wait on the fence in nouveau_bo_move_m2mf
- [PATCH] nouveau: explicitly wait on the fence in nouveau_bo_move_m2mf
- [PATCH] drm/nouveau: Drop mutex_lock_nested for atomic
- [PATCH] drm/nouveau: Drop mutex_lock_nested for atomic
- [PATCH] drm/nouveau: Drop mutex_lock_nested for atomic