From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joseph Salisbury Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI / EC: Clear stale EC events on Samsung systems Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 18:12:52 -0500 Message-ID: <531900F4.5090805@canonical.com> References: <1393429360-4344-1-git-send-email-clancy.kieran@gmail.com> <1885040.WKp5oRmh5C@vostro.rjw.lan> <3916368.BifXucqhsP@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:50901 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750834AbaCFXND (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Mar 2014 18:13:03 -0500 In-Reply-To: <3916368.BifXucqhsP@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Kieran Clancy Cc: Len Brown , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Li Guang , Lan Tianyu , Juan Manuel Cabo , Dennis Jansen On 03/06/2014 07:32 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, March 06, 2014 11:54:28 AM Kieran Clancy wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Thursday, March 06, 2014 11:04:14 AM Kieran Clancy wrote: >>>> Rafael, is it a separate process to get this in the stable tree or >>>> will it naturally happen after being merged into the mainline? >>> I need to add a proper "CC stable" tag to your patch for this to happen. >>> >>> Which -stable kernels should it go to? >> 3.2 and 3.10 seem like natural choices (3.4?), but I don't know the >> norm for this kind of fix. Would there be any reason not to include it >> in some particular stable kernels? > In some cases patches are not needed in older -stable, because the > changes are not relevant there etc. > > OK, I'll mark if for all applicable -stable series. > > Thanks! > Thanks, Rafael!