From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S966303AbdLSBsJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:48:09 -0500 Received: from omzsmtpe01.verizonbusiness.com ([199.249.25.210]:32160 "EHLO omzsmtpe01.verizonbusiness.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964871AbdLSBsF (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:48:05 -0500 From: alexander.levin@verizon.com X-Host: pioneer.tdc.vzwcorp.com To: Joe Perches CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" , Andy Shevchenko , Markus Elfring , Andy Shevchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 124/177] platform/x86: sony-laptop: Fix error handling in sony_nc_setup_rfkill() Thread-Topic: [PATCH 4.9 124/177] platform/x86: sony-laptop: Fix error handling in sony_nc_setup_rfkill() Thread-Index: AQHTeGs59aX9aXHtoUmMJkKNR2rAvw== Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 01:46:44 +0000 Message-ID: <20171219014635.h3tqbs5adjiojdqq@sasha-lappy> References: <20171218152909.823644066@linuxfoundation.org> <20171218152916.423111963@linuxfoundation.org> <1513617711.31581.104.camel@perches.com> In-Reply-To: <1513617711.31581.104.camel@perches.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.144.60.250] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nfs id vBJ1mDpZ026213 On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 09:21:51AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: >On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 16:49 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> 4.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > >I am _very_ suspicious of any -stable patch by Markus Elfring. > >Are you sure this is necessary and useful for -stable? >Does this actually fix something or does it merely reduce >object size a few bytes? Yeah... While the patch on it's own makes some sense, the code around it is pretty crappy and doesn't benefit from the patch. I'll drop it, thanks! -- Thanks, Sasha