Re: [PATCH 3.10.y+] PM / sleep: Use valid_state() for platform-dependent sleep states only

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 03:08:28PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 02:47:58PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 12:45:12AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 08:29:09AM +0200, Francis Moreau wrote:
> > > > On 09/04/2014 11:21 PM, Brian Norris wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > > > > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.10+: 27ddcc6596e5: PM / sleep: Add state field to pm_states[] entries
> > > > > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.10+
> > > > > ---
> > > > > This is a backport request for these two commits upstream:
> > > > > 
> > > > >     27ddcc6596e5 PM / sleep: Add state field to pm_states[] entries
> > > > >     43e8317b0bba PM / sleep: Use valid_state() for platform-dependent sleep states only
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Wouldn't it be cleaner to have 2 separate backports then ?
> > > 
> > > The first is purely a dependency for the second. It has no value on its
> > > own. So I thought the above form made sense and followed the process
> > > mentioned in Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt.
> > > 
> > > Admittedly, it's a little asymmetric. But I really don't know what the
> > > "best" option is, since I'd prefer not having to send around any patch
> > > text at all, unless the backport is not trivial (these apply cleanly).
> > 
> > If they apply cleanly, then just list the git commit ids, and I can take
> > care of the rest.
> 
> OK. Is this a policy that should be documented? AIUI, we have a few
> options:
> 
>   1. Include 'Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org' in the original commit that
>   gets to Linus
> 
>   2. Send an email to stable@vger.kernel.org that just contains the
>   commit IDs, after they've made it to Linus
> 
>   3. Send patches to stable@vger.kernel.org, if backporting is not
>   trivial
> 
> #1 is most common, and #2 seems like it would handle most of what misses
> #1. #3 seems inferior, whenever #2 would suffice. But #2 is not in
> stable_kernel_rules.txt.

I always gladly take patches to that .txt file if you wish to make it
clearer.

thanks,

greg k-h