From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] dell-wmi: Don't send unneeded keypresses Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 19:55:31 +0100 Message-ID: <20141220185531.GA28431@amd> References: <1417648583-9336-1-git-send-email-gabriele.mzt@gmail.com> <201412052207.35676@pali> <20141203180329.GB20370@vmdeb7> <201412201010.18151@pali> <20141220151108.GA11752@amd> <20141220162804.GA7872@khazad-dum.debian.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:57338 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751003AbaLTSzd (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Dec 2014 13:55:33 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: platform-driver-x86-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Pali =?iso-8859-1?Q?Roh=E1r?= Cc: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , Darren Hart , Gabriele Mazzotta , Matthew Garrett , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, LKML On Sat 2014-12-20 18:02:49, Pali Roh=E1r wrote: > 2014-12-20 17:28 GMT+01:00 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh : >=20 > > On Sat, 20 Dec 2014, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > Ok, I agree that it is subjective how serious it is... > > > > > > Just to remind that patch fixing problem described in > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/platform-driver-x86/msg05922.h= t > > > > > > ml > > > > > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/platform-driver-x86/msg05924.h > > > > > > tml > > > > > > > > > > I don't have any objection to sending this back to stable. > > > > > Stable is for fixing REAL bugs, as opposed to theorhetical > > > > > races, etc. This is a "real" bug. > > > > > > > > > > As to not chaning behavior, if it's OK for mainline, it's OK > > > > > for stable. At least that is my understanding of it. Folks > > > > > are free to verify with Greg if they disagree. > > > > > > > > Darren, so how you decided? Now when patches are in linus tree, > > > > are you going to send them to stable tree? > > > > > > Please don't. -stable is for serious mainline bugs people are act= ually > > > hitting. Null pointer dereference counts, if people actually hit > > > it. This is more behaviour change, and yes, the new behaviour is > > > better, but it is really different class. > > > > Sometimes the old behavior is something that is a major pain for us= ers and > > userspace. In that case, where the new behavior fixes really annoy= ing > > usecase bugs, the fix belongs in -stable IMHO. > > > > Broken behavior hits, by definition, every user of the feature afte= r all. > > > > -- > > "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to br= ing > > them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond > > where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot > > Henrique Holschuh > > >=20 > Ok, I'm asking. It's up to you how you decide. Problem with keyboard > illumination button is that BIOS change keyboard backlight plus it se= nd > keycode. So if you have userspace application which listening for > illumination button and then do something with that event (e.g change > keyboard backlight) you will get duplicate actions (or cyclic events,= etc). > But if you think that this change should not go to stable tree, its o= k. I'm > just ask how you decide... Well, user report "keyboard illumination does not work in GNOME 3.14159 on Mandriva 1.732 and this patch fixes it" would certainly help= =2E But I'm afraid that Fedora 1.4142 already knows and expects those duplicate events. Pavel --=20 (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses= /blog.html