> > > >> *** 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).
> This is a backport of a patch that is already upstream. If it doesn't
> belong in a stable tree, great, let us know that, saying why it is so.
See jacek.anaszewski@xxxxxxxxx 's explanation.
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