From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752146AbaIEWIf (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Sep 2014 18:08:35 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f54.google.com ([209.85.220.54]:64144 "EHLO mail-pa0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751447AbaIEWIc (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Sep 2014 18:08:32 -0400 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 15:08:28 -0700 From: Brian Norris To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Francis Moreau , stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel , "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.10.y+] PM / sleep: Use valid_state() for platform-dependent sleep states only Message-ID: <20140905220828.GE18411@ld-irv-0074> References: <1849024.CHOUso6H2K@vostro.rjw.lan> <1409865665-5375-1-git-send-email-computersforpeace@gmail.com> <54095835.7000207@gmail.com> <20140905074512.GA12218@brian-ubuntu> <20140905214758.GC30221@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140905214758.GC30221@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 02:47:58PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 12:45:12AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 08:29:09AM +0200, Francis Moreau wrote: > > > On 09/04/2014 11:21 PM, Brian Norris wrote: > > [...] > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > > Cc: # 3.10+: 27ddcc6596e5: PM / sleep: Add state field to pm_states[] entries > > > > Cc: # 3.10+ > > > > --- > > > > This is a backport request for these two commits upstream: > > > > > > > > 27ddcc6596e5 PM / sleep: Add state field to pm_states[] entries > > > > 43e8317b0bba PM / sleep: Use valid_state() for platform-dependent sleep states only > > > > > > > > > > Wouldn't it be cleaner to have 2 separate backports then ? > > > > The first is purely a dependency for the second. It has no value on its > > own. So I thought the above form made sense and followed the process > > mentioned in Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt. > > > > Admittedly, it's a little asymmetric. But I really don't know what the > > "best" option is, since I'd prefer not having to send around any patch > > text at all, unless the backport is not trivial (these apply cleanly). > > If they apply cleanly, then just list the git commit ids, and I can take > care of the rest. OK. Is this a policy that should be documented? AIUI, we have a few options: 1. Include 'Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org' in the original commit that gets to Linus 2. Send an email to stable@vger.kernel.org that just contains the commit IDs, after they've made it to Linus 3. Send patches to stable@vger.kernel.org, if backporting is not trivial #1 is most common, and #2 seems like it would handle most of what misses #1. #3 seems inferior, whenever #2 would suffice. But #2 is not in stable_kernel_rules.txt. > Don't merge patches together, it just causes problems and makes it > harder to track what is going on. To be clear, the diff I sent is actually just a single patch (the fix); it is not a squashed version of both. I realize now that this was probably unclear. Brian