On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Monday, October 14, 2013 08:14:28 AM Felipe Contreras wrote: >> 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. > > Oh, please give me a break. > > I've applied your patch even though I really should have waited for an ACK from > Matthew before doing that, but that only made you *more* demanding. I'm not demanding anything, I'm making a case. > I generally tend to be nice to people, but you evidently take that as a sign of > weakness, so trying to be nice to you doesn't really make sense to me. On the > other hand, I'm not too good at throwing flames at people and it distracts me > so much that I can't really afford it. Please find yourself someone else to > fight with. I don't care if you are nice to me, be nice, be aggressive, I do not care. All I care is that we do what is best here, and since many people's back-light has been broken for so many releases and we have a very simple fix that we know it works, because v3.6 worked on these laptops (and all the previous releases), we *know* this patch cannot make things worst than v3.6, and we *know* we broke things since v3.7. If you don't want to fix the backlight in these laptops for v3.12, fine, but don't blame it on my attitude, your users don't care about my attitude, your users only care that Linux works correctly, and as things stand v3.12 will *not* work correctly for these laptops, even though we know how to fix it, and the fix is simple, and cannot make things worst than v3.6. We are going to fix this regression only on certain laptops, but not others, even though we already know the fix works for those too. I don't see how that makes sense to you, but it's your call. -- 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
