> > > >> *** 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).
   
> 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.anaszew...@gmail.com 's explanation.

                                                                        Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) 
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to