On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 21:45 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: [...] > From <http://bugs.debian.org/645811> I see that you tested these patches: > > affc9a0d59ac [media] staging: lirc_serial: Do not assume error codes > returned by request_irq() > 9b98d6067971 [media] staging: lirc_serial: Fix bogus error codes > 1ff1d88e8629 [media] staging: lirc_serial: Fix deadlock on resume failure > c8e57e1b766c [media] staging: lirc_serial: Free resources on failure > paths of lirc_serial_probe() > 9105b8b20041 [media] staging: lirc_serial: Fix init/exit order > > in a VM. They were applied in 3.3-rc1 and have been in the Debian > kernel since 3.1.4-1 at the end of November. > > Would some of these patches (e.g., at least patches 1, 2, and 5) be > appropriate for inclusion in the 3.0.y and 3.2.y stable kernels from > kernel.org? Assuming they haven't caused any regressions, I think everything except 9b98d6067971 (4/5) would be appropriate. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings One of the nice things about standards is that there are so many of them.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
