From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f47.google.com ([74.125.82.47]:52011 "EHLO mail-wm0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752514AbeBFUqO (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Feb 2018 15:46:14 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 065/110] led: core: Fix brightness setting when setting delay_off=0 To: Sasha Levin , Pavel Machek References: <20180203180015.29073-1-alexander.levin@microsoft.com> <20180203180015.29073-65-alexander.levin@microsoft.com> <20180203203525.GA5860@amd> <20180204003029.2lkcmh6wvzpnlrls@sasha-lappy> <20180204090531.GA29468@amd> <20180204111500.GB14797@kroah.com> <20180204171736.GA1388@amd> <20180206020210.m6gl7vai4p6azb6s@sasha-lappy> Cc: Greg KH , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" , Matthieu CASTET , "linux-leds@vger.kernel.org" From: Jacek Anaszewski Message-ID: <713113d8-7662-d80c-c62f-af020469d0bf@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 21:44:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180206020210.m6gl7vai4p6azb6s@sasha-lappy> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 02/06/2018 03:02 AM, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 06:17:36PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: >> >>>>>>> *** if brightness=0, led off >>>>>>> *** else apply brightness if next timer <--- timer is stop, and will never apply new setting >>>>>>> ** otherwise set led_set_brightness_nosleep >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To fix that, when we delete the timer, we should clear LED_BLINK_SW. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you run the tests on the affected stable kernels? I have feeling >>>>>> that the problem described might not be present there. >>>>> >>>>> Hm, I don't seem to have HW to test that out. Maybe someone else does? >>>> >>>> Why are you submitting patches you have no way to test? >>> >>> What? This is stable tree backporting, why are you trying to make a >>> requirement for something that we have never had before? >> >> I don't think random patches should be sent to stable just because >> they appeared in mainline. Plus, I don't think I'm making new rules: >> >> submit-checklist.rst: >> >> 13) Has been build- and runtime tested with and without ``CONFIG_SMP`` >> and >> ``CONFIG_PREEMPT.`` >> >> stable-kernel-rules.rst: >> >> Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not, >> into the "-stable" tree: >> >> - It must be obviously correct and tested. >> - It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a >> problem..." type thing). > > So you're saying that this doesn't qualify as a bug? > >>> This is a backport of a patch that is already upstream. If it doesn't >>> belong in a stable tree, great, let us know that, saying why it is so. >> >> See jacek.anaszewski@gmail.com 's explanation. > > I might be missing something, but Jacek suggested I pull another patch > before this one? Just to clarify: For 4.14 below patches are chosen correctly: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 065/110] led: core: Fix brightness setting when setting delay_off=0 [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 094/110] leds: core: Fix regression caused by commit 2b83ff96f51d For 4.9 both above patches are needed preceded by: eb1610b4c273 ("led: core: Fix blink_brightness setting race") The issue the patch [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 065/110] fixes was introduced in 4.7, and thus it should be removed from the series for 3.18 and 4.4. -- Best regards, Jacek Anaszewski