From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] sh_eth: ensure pm_runtime cannot suspend the device during init Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 15:39:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20140329.153942.127963096052575502.davem@davemloft.net> References: <5335E53C.6020208@cogentembedded.com> <20140328.171836.1899283620390720935.davem@davemloft.net> <5336D007.1090709@cogentembedded.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk, linux-kernel@lists.codethink.co.uk, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com To: sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5336D007.1090709@cogentembedded.com> Sender: linux-sh-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Sergei Shtylyov Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 17:52:07 +0400 > Hello. > > On 29-03-2014 1:18, David Miller wrote: > >>>>> I thought it was against the net next tree, given the number of >>>>> patches that are currently being applied to the sh_eth driver. > >>>> Fair enough, applied to net-next, thanks! > >>> It probably makes sense to queue this for the stable kernels as well. > >> Sorry, that's not how this works. > >> If it's good enough for -stable, meaning that users are activly >> hitting >> the problem and it's a serious bug, then it's good enough for 'net' >> and should have been submitted against 'net'. > > I thought that at this point only regression fixes are good for 'net'. > Although, this can be considered a regression too -- since addition of > runtime PM support back in 2009. -stable has more stringent requirements for inclusion than 'net', therefore it is never valid for something to go -stable which is not in 'net'.