> > > >> *** 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
Description: Digital signature