From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C351C433FF for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 10:51:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0ED52075C for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 10:51:28 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1564224689; bh=DzM4H3u7OLbCY6a0MB4TM5xKh/mEPchjAjLVVKcHTuk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=siS58UYHSqrI4YOwMw/Ew6dB6Qm1BrFoETyIWKAAVf+lJ4FQU0J3JlucqC+oU0iC+ BmRavgNOYG6kV/PeQJu9BhWs9VESIrKEE1sKlH2vSJ31BcKzswdXN0DFd1Nwfx8Xeu lsIyH4LcriOGPI8yCk5MlMiOU676oiEC9nHqbUWI= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728832AbfG0KvY (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Jul 2019 06:51:24 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:38308 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725875AbfG0KvY (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Jul 2019 06:51:24 -0400 Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8313F2075C; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 10:51:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1564224684; bh=DzM4H3u7OLbCY6a0MB4TM5xKh/mEPchjAjLVVKcHTuk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=aCmqiLu0NnvrbRdYRHctT9VUChrEtsQBVv4w6xXulx7x5LfsVfLufF/6vbxB/LnNn Xjvjo4kkEJPtJjng50DvHYSEsjr3eVX1pUq+borYdaj4T/uLqsVul8HJbs6+DCMrEA 9rG0hISS1Yri28IKQd/qX9f8TZ1Vx7i9LXoUrwUI= Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 12:51:21 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Pavel Machek Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, Furquan Shaikh , Mika Westerberg , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Sasha Levin Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 085/271] ACPICA: Clear status of GPEs on first direct enable Message-ID: <20190727105121.GC32555@kroah.com> References: <20190724191655.268628197@linuxfoundation.org> <20190724191702.469790760@linuxfoundation.org> <20190726175706.GB5945@xo-6d-61-c0.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190726175706.GB5945@xo-6d-61-c0.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15) Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 07:57:06PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Wed 2019-07-24 21:19:14, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > [ Upstream commit 44758bafa53602f2581a6857bb20b55d4d8ad5b2 ] > > > > ACPI GPEs (other than the EC one) can be enabled in two situations. > > First, the GPEs with existing _Lxx and _Exx methods are enabled > > implicitly by ACPICA during system initialization. Second, the > > GPEs without these methods (like GPEs listed by _PRW objects for > > wakeup devices) need to be enabled directly by the code that is > > going to use them (e.g. ACPI power management or device drivers). > > > > In the former case, if the status of a given GPE is set to start > > with, its handler method (either _Lxx or _Exx) needs to be invoked > > to take care of the events (possibly) signaled before the GPE was > > enabled. In the latter case, however, the first caller of > > acpi_enable_gpe() for a given GPE should not be expected to care > > about any events that might be signaled through it earlier. In > > that case, it is better to clear the status of the GPE before > > enabling it, to prevent stale events from triggering unwanted > > actions (like spurious system resume, for example). > > Given the complexity of ACPI and number of implementations, I don't > think this is safe for stable. So it's better to have a regression later rather than sooner? > Notebooks are not part of automated test farms, so it did not get > nearly enough testing... But by finding problems with a patch when it is closer to having been created is always better than waiting 6+ months to find the issue then. And if this patch does cause problems, we can easily revert it. thanks, greg k-h