From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 065/110] led: core: Fix brightness setting when setting delay_off=0 Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 22:51:04 +0100 Message-ID: <20180206215104.GA25631@amd> References: <20180203180015.29073-1-alexander.levin@microsoft.com> <20180203180015.29073-65-alexander.levin@microsoft.com> <20180203203525.GA5860@amd> <20180204003029.2lkcmh6wvzpnlrls@sasha-lappy> <20180204090531.GA29468@amd> <20180204111500.GB14797@kroah.com> <20180204171736.GA1388@amd> <20180206020210.m6gl7vai4p6azb6s@sasha-lappy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180206020210.m6gl7vai4p6azb6s@sasha-lappy> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Sasha Levin Cc: Greg KH , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" , Matthieu CASTET , "linux-leds@vger.kernel.org" , Jacek Anaszewski List-Id: linux-leds@vger.kernel.org --x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue 2018-02-06 02:02:19, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 06:17:36PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > >> > > >> *** if brightness=3D0, 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_BLIN= K_SW. > >> > > > > >> > > >Can you run the tests on the affected stable kernels? I have feel= ing > >> > > >that the problem described might not be present there. > >> > > > >> > > Hm, I don't seem to have HW to test that out. Maybe someone else d= oes? > >> > > >> > 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). >=20 > So you're saying that this doesn't qualify as a bug? I'm saying that this does not qualitfy as severe enough bug. stable-kernel-rules.rst describes what bugs are severe enough, and this is not one of them. Best regards, Pavel=09 --=20 (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html --x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlp6I0cACgkQMOfwapXb+vJtaQCeO4CM+FW1QjGoVcVUqRdPfqMx rGAAmQEA1D7NoqhRYYevjqcBF7hjDaUO =MHSV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn--