On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 03:57:58PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:29:54 AM Hanjun Guo wrote: > > On 2013-5-29 19:07, Martin Mokrejs wrote: > > > Hanjun Guo wrote: > > >> On 2013-5-29 7:30, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > >>> On Thursday, May 23, 2013 08:44:26 PM Hanjun Guo wrote: > > >>>> In acpi_processor_add(), get_cpu_device() will return NULL sometimes, > > >>>> although the chances are small, I think it should be fixed. > > >>>> > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@xxxxxxxxxx> > > >>> > > >>> This patch isn't necessary any more after the changes queued up for 3.11 > > >>> in the acpi-hotplug branch of the linux-pm.git tree. > > >> > > >> Ok, I noticed your patch set, just drop my patch. > > > > > > But shouldn't this go to stable at least? I checked linux-3.9.4 > > > and it applies fine. Whether this is relevant for other stable > > > series I will leave up to somebody else. ;) > > > > Hi Rafeal, > > > > What's your opinion on Martin's suggestion? > > Well, this is kind of hard to say. We generally don't apply patches to -stable > that don't have mainline counterparts. > > Greg, I wonder what your opinion is? We do not apply patches to -stable that are not in Linus's tree, unless there is no problem in Linus's tree due to a major rewrite of the code, and it has been confirmed that the same problem isn't there. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
