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? >> 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. I might be missing something, but Jacek suggested I pull another patch before this one? -- Thanks, Sasha