From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753497Ab1CIWHj (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Mar 2011 17:07:39 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:32861 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751529Ab1CIWHi (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Mar 2011 17:07:38 -0500 Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 14:07:12 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Alan Cox Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Hong Liu Subject: Re: [PATCH, RESEND] Putting the device into runtime suspend after resume()/probe() is handled Message-Id: <20110309140712.2500862d.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20110309215932.08183cfd@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> References: <20110309123916.19908.78417.stgit@bob.linux.org.uk> <20110309134504.6d850802.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20110309215932.08183cfd@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.0.2 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 21:59:32 +0000 Alan Cox wrote: > On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 13:45:04 -0800 > Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 12:39:34 +0000 > > Alan Cox wrote: > > > > > From: Alan Cox > > > To: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > > Subject: [PATCH, RESEND] Putting the device into runtime suspend after resume()/probe() is handled > > > Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 12:39:34 +0000 > > > User-Agent: StGIT/0.14.3 > > > > > > From: Hong Liu > > > > > > by the PM core and the device core code. No need to manually add them in > > > each single driver. And correct the runtime state in remove(). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Hong Liu > > > Signed-off-by: Alan Cox > > > > I'd merged this a while back but was awaiting info on why v1 had a > > cc:stable so the changelog could be updated to indicate why a -stable > > backport was needed. > > > > I see that the cc:stable has been removed so that settles that. But > > it's still unclear how serious the bugs-which-were fixed are. Oh well, > > a bug's a bug. I put it in my 2.6.38 queue anyway. > > Don't think anything there is that important. Also anyone actually using > the driver would I'm pretty sure currently be running an Intel spun > kernel not a generic 2.6.older unless someone is also now relying on it > for another platform anyway. OK, thanks. Let's shoot for 2.6.39 then.