From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Darren Hart Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] dell-wmi: Don't send unneeded keypresses Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 10:03:37 -0800 Message-ID: <20141203180329.GB20370@vmdeb7> References: <1417648583-9336-1-git-send-email-gabriele.mzt@gmail.com> <201412052131.34455@pali> <20141205204122.GA11772@amd> <201412052207.35676@pali> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:49573 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751777AbaLFEee (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2014 23:34:34 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201412052207.35676@pali> Sender: platform-driver-x86-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Pali =?iso-8859-1?Q?Roh=E1r?= Cc: Pavel Machek , Gabriele Mazzotta , mjg59@srcf.ucam.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 10:07:35PM +0100, Pali Roh=E1r wrote: > On Friday 05 December 2014 21:41:22 Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Fri 2014-12-05 21:31:34, Pali Roh=E1r wrote: > > > On Wednesday 03 December 2014 14:34:32 Darren Hart wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 12:16:20AM +0100, Gabriele > > > > Mazzotta > > >=20 > > > wrote: > > > > > Currently dell-wmi reports keypresses for WMI events > > > > > that are notifications of changes performed by the > > > > > BIOS. This patch series make sure that no keypresses > > > > > are sent for those events so that nothing is done from > > > > > userspace. > > > > >=20 > > > > > Gabriele Mazzotta (3): > > > > > dell-wmi: Use appropriate keycode for radio state > > > > > changes dell-wmi: Don't report keypresses for radio > > > > > state changes > > > >=20 > > > > Merged into one patch, queued. > > > >=20 > > > > > dell-wmi: Don't report keypresses on keybord > > > > > illumination change > > > >=20 > > > > Queued. > > > >=20 > > > > Thanks Gabriele. > > >=20 > > > Darren, what do you think about sending patch into stable > > > kernel? > >=20 > > I'd suggest against that. -stable is for "serious" bugs, and > > we don't want to change this kind of behaviour in -stable > > kernel. > >=20 > > Pavel >=20 > Ok, I agree that it is subjective how serious it is... > Just to remind that patch fixing problem described in >=20 > http://www.spinics.net/lists/platform-driver-x86/msg05922.html > http://www.spinics.net/lists/platform-driver-x86/msg05924.html I don't have any objection to sending this back to stable. Stable is fo= r fixing REAL bugs, as opposed to theorhetical races, etc. This is a "real" bug. As to not chaning behavior, if it's OK for mainline, it's OK for stable= =2E At least that is my understanding of it. Folks are free to verify with Gre= g if they disagree. --=20 Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center