On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sunday, October 13, 2013 10:30:50 PM Felipe Contreras wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Felipe Contreras >> <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > More people have reported they need this for their machines to work >> > correctly. >> > >> > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60682 >> >> I see this was merged to the linux-next branch. Is there any reason >> why it's not proposed for v3.12? > > It is not a fix for a recent breakage, it doesn't fix an outright crash or > security issue and there is a chance, albeit arguably very small, that > something will not function on one of the affected systems for someone > as a result of the blacklisting. So? That chance is already there because the blacklist is already there, but we cannot know until v3.12 is released, because that's when most people would be testing that code. It seems to me your worry is that somebody would report a regression that happened v3.12-rc6 (if it has this patch applied), while it worked correctly in v3.12-rc5, in which case you would get a complaint from Linus. But we all know that's not going to happen. The complaints (if any) would arrive in v3.12, and that would happen regardless of this patch. Besides, our goal is to make v3.12 as stable as possible, and it seems to me you are blindly following the letter of a rule, instead if interpreting what is the intent of rule. If I had sent the patch the 29th of June, it would have been aplied by now and be part of the current blacklist, and the result would be the same; we cannot really know until v3.12 is released. -- Felipe Contreras -- 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
