lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 065/110] led: core: Fix brightness setting when setting delay_off=0

> > > >> *** if brightness=0, led off
> > > >> *** else apply brightness if next timer <--- timer is stop, and will never apply new setting
> > > >> ** otherwise set led_set_brightness_nosleep
> > > >>
> > > >> To fix that, when we delete the timer, we should clear LED_BLINK_SW.
> > > >
> > > >Can you run the tests on the affected stable kernels? I have feeling
> > > >that the problem described might not be present there.
> > >
> > > Hm, I don't seem to have HW to test that out. Maybe someone else does?
> >
> > Why are you submitting patches you have no way to test?
>
> What? This is stable tree backporting, why are you trying to make a
> requirement for something that we have never had before?

I don't think random patches should be sent to stable just because
they appeared in mainline. Plus, I don't think I'm making new rules:

submit-checklist.rst:

13) Has been build- and runtime tested with and without ``CONFIG_SMP``
and
``CONFIG_PREEMPT.``

stable-kernel-rules.rst:

Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not,
into the "-stable" tree:

- It must be obviously correct and tested.
- It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a
problem..." type thing).

> This is a backport of a patch that is already upstream. If it doesn't
> belong in a stable tree, great, let us know that, saying why it is so.

See jacek.anaszewski@gmail.com 's explanation.

Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-04 18:18    [W:0.148 / U:3.316 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site