On Tue 2018-02-06 02:02:19, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 06:17:36PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > >> > > >> *** 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). > > So you're saying that this doesn't qualify as a bug? I'm saying that this does not qualitfy as severe enough bug. stable-kernel-rules.rst describes what bugs are severe enough, and this is not one of them. Best regards, Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
