From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932750AbaIEOuN (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Sep 2014 10:50:13 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-f48.google.com ([74.125.82.48]:55634 "EHLO mail-wg0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751119AbaIEOuK (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Sep 2014 10:50:10 -0400 Message-ID: <5409CE2C.8000609@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 16:52:28 +0200 From: Francis Moreau User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Norris CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman , 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 References: <1849024.CHOUso6H2K@vostro.rjw.lan> <1409865665-5375-1-git-send-email-computersforpeace@gmail.com> <54095835.7000207@gmail.com> <20140905074512.GA12218@brian-ubuntu> In-Reply-To: <20140905074512.GA12218@brian-ubuntu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/05/2014 09:45 AM, 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). I don't know, I just find cleaner to cherry-pick upstream commits when possible so I can retrieve them easily later when inspecting a stable kernel. My 2 cents.