On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 04:00:01PM +0100, Matthias Schiffer wrote:
> On 02/06/2018 09:44 PM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
> > On 02/06/2018 03:02 AM, 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?
> >>
> >>>> 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?
> >
> > Just to clarify:
> >
> > For 4.14 below patches are chosen correctly:
> >
> > [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 065/110] led: core: Fix brightness setting when
> > setting delay_off=0
> > [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 094/110] leds: core: Fix regression caused by
> > commit 2b83ff96f51d
> >
> > For 4.9 both above patches are needed preceded by:
> >
> > eb1610b4c273 ("led: core: Fix blink_brightness setting race")
> >
> > The issue the patch [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 065/110] fixes was
> > introduced in 4.7, and thus it should be removed from the series
> > for 3.18 and 4.4.
> >
>
> It seems only "led: core: Fix brightness setting when setting delay_off=0"
> was applied to 4.9. Could we get the regression fixes backported to 4.9 as
> well?
What exact fixes were they? I'll be glad to apply them if I have a git
commit id.
thanks,
greg k-h