From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752027AbaCFXNF (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 6 Mar 2014 18:13:05 -0500
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
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 6 Mar 2014 18:13:03 -0500
Message-ID: <531900F4.5090805@canonical.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 18:12:52 -0500
From: Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@canonical.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Kieran Clancy <clancy.kieran@gmail.com>
CC: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Li Guang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>,
        Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com>,
        Juan Manuel Cabo <juanmanuel.cabo@gmail.com>,
        Dennis Jansen <dennis.jansen@web.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI / EC: Clear stale EC events on Samsung systems
References: <1393429360-4344-1-git-send-email-clancy.kieran@gmail.com> <1885040.WKp5oRmh5C@vostro.rjw.lan> <CAGf84QK-N+C6eHct4XDzOCHwfN649F2okJ1y2V70wWz-wHFKEA@mail.gmail.com> <3916368.BifXucqhsP@vostro.rjw.lan>
In-Reply-To: <3916368.BifXucqhsP@vostro.rjw.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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 <rjw@rjwysocki.net> 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!