On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 11:51:15AM -0800, Brian Norris wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 04:47:58PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > 4.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > I'm sorry, but I already objected to this one during the discussion > here: > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10065483/ > [PATCH 4.13 03/28] Bluetooth: btusb: fix QCA Rome suspend/resume > > in which we pointed out a regression. The $subject patch does NOT > actually resolve the previous regression, though it might help to mask > it. The proper approach to resolve the above regression was to revert > the patch, not to backport the $subject patch. > > Regarding this patch, IIUC this is not a bugfix -- it's a feature > addition (e.g., for helping with BLE mouse wakeup), and it has already > been proven to break some user space (we have an internal bug tracking > this, but suffice it to say that we've already tried and reverted this > patch [1]). This patch massively increases the surface in which spurious > bluetooth activity can wake the system, and in some cases we never can > suspend the system at all. > > Unfortunately, Matthias was on vacation when you sent the review > request, so our team wasn't alerted properly. Can you please back this > out of all -stable branches? > > Or alternatively, if those I've added on CC disagree and are happy to > deal with the fallout of this patch...well, then that's fine. We can > revert this patch in our downstream kernels and reapply if/when we can > account for it properly :) As Linus's tree is also broken, being bug-compatible here is good, right? I can just apply the revert/fix patch when it lands in that tree, and all will be ok. Or is Linus's tree not broken now? Sorry, this whole thread has been really confusing... thanks, greg k-h