On 3/16/22 7:02 PM, Greg KH wrote:

On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 04:56:11PM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:

...

Hi,

I just found the commit in 5.10 stable kernel.

stable-linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain 8a3fc32b322cc3081dd3569047c9834f496b4ab0 | head -1 v5.10.17

commit 8a3fc32b322cc3081dd3569047c9834f496b4ab0 Author: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com Date:   Thu Feb 4 18:25:37 2021 +0100

cpufreq: ACPI: Extend frequency tables to cover boost frequencies

commit 3c55e94c0adea4a5389c4b80f6ae9927dd6a4501 upstream.

[ ... ]

Fixes: 41ea667227ba ("x86, sched: Calculate frequency invariance for AMD systems")     Fixes: 976df7e5730e ("x86, sched: Use midpoint of max_boost and max_P for frequency invariance on AMD EPYC")     Fixes: db865272d9c4 ("cpufreq: Avoid configuring old governors as default with intel_pstate")

Except db865272d9c4 was applied in v5.10-rc2, the others (41ea667227ba and 976df7e5730e) were first appeared in v5.11-rc1.

linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain 41ea667227ba | head -1 v5.11-rc1 linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain 976df7e5730e | head -1 v5.11-rc1 linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain db865272d9c4 | head -1 v5.10-rc2

So I am wondering if the mentioned commit is suitable for 5.10 stable kernel, or what am I missing?

Is it causing a problem for you? What is the issue with having it in the 5.10.y tree?

No.

I am trying to port 41ea667227ba and relevant commits to our kernel which is based on 5.10 stable kernel, and I am being asked to port 3c55e94c0ade per the fix tag after 41ea667227ba was added, then I was confused because of conflict.

Thanks, Guoqing

On 3/16/22 8:53 PM, Greg KH wrote:

On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 08:42:56PM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:

...

On 3/16/22 7:02 PM, Greg KH wrote:

...

On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 04:56:11PM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:

...

Hi,

I just found the commit in 5.10 stable kernel.

stable-linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain 8a3fc32b322cc3081dd3569047c9834f496b4ab0 | head -1 v5.10.17

commit 8a3fc32b322cc3081dd3569047c9834f496b4ab0 Author: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com Date:   Thu Feb 4 18:25:37 2021 +0100

cpufreq: ACPI: Extend frequency tables to cover boost frequencies

commit 3c55e94c0adea4a5389c4b80f6ae9927dd6a4501 upstream.

[ ... ]

Fixes: 41ea667227ba ("x86, sched: Calculate frequency invariance for AMD systems")     Fixes: 976df7e5730e ("x86, sched: Use midpoint of max_boost and max_P for frequency invariance on AMD EPYC")     Fixes: db865272d9c4 ("cpufreq: Avoid configuring old governors as default with intel_pstate")

Except db865272d9c4 was applied in v5.10-rc2, the others (41ea667227ba and 976df7e5730e) were first appeared in v5.11-rc1.

linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain 41ea667227ba | head -1 v5.11-rc1 linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain 976df7e5730e | head -1 v5.11-rc1 linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain db865272d9c4 | head -1 v5.10-rc2

So I am wondering if the mentioned commit is suitable for 5.10 stable kernel, or what am I missing?

Is it causing a problem for you? What is the issue with having it in the 5.10.y tree?

No.

I am trying to port 41ea667227ba and relevant commits to our kernel which is based on 5.10 stable kernel, and I am being asked to port 3c55e94c0ade per the fix tag after 41ea667227ba was added, then I was confused because of conflict.

Don't "port" stable kernels, just do a normal merge and then all is much better. That way you do not miss patches you should have applied but didn't realize until much later...

Thanks for the tip and also the effort for stable kernel maintenance!

Thanks, Guoqing