From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] sh_eth: ensure pm_runtime cannot suspend the device during init Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 17:52:07 +0400 Message-ID: <5336D007.1090709@cogentembedded.com> References: <5335CCBF.8030606@codethink.co.uk> <20140328.160024.136488246522581222.davem@davemloft.net> <5335E53C.6020208@cogentembedded.com> <20140328.171836.1899283620390720935.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed 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: David Miller Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140328.171836.1899283620390720935.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: linux-sh-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org 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. WBR, Sergei