From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752473Ab2DVUZK (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Apr 2012 16:25:10 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([193.178.161.156]:58093 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752191Ab2DVUZI (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Apr 2012 16:25:08 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Bojan Smojver Subject: Re: [PATCH v11]: Hibernation: fix the number of pages used for hibernate/thaw buffering Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:29:46 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/3.4.0-rc3+; KDE/4.6.0; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Per Olofsson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linux PM list References: <1334267969.2573.14.camel@shrek.rexursive.com> <201204221347.52883.rjw@sisk.pl> <22aaaccf-5898-460c-b1e4-a87c153d9e0c@email.android.com> In-Reply-To: <22aaaccf-5898-460c-b1e4-a87c153d9e0c@email.android.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201204222229.47160.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sunday, April 22, 2012, Bojan Smojver wrote: > "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: > > >On Sunday, April 22, 2012, Bojan Smojver wrote: > >> "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: > >> > >> >On Wednesday, April 18, 2012, Bojan Smojver wrote: > >> >> Per Olofsson wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >OK, let's say Reviewed-by then. > >> >> > > >> >> >Reviewed-by: Per Olofsson > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> Rafael, > >> >> > >> >> Anything you still need here? > >> > > >> >No, thanks, I'm going to apply the patch. > >> > > >> >Rafael > >> > >> Any chance of it in 3.3.3? > > > >Nope. > > > >> Looks like rc1 of it is already out there... > > > >I'm going to push it for v3.5, so it will only appear in 3.4.y I guess. > > > >Thanks, > >Rafael > > Don't understand why not. This is a fix for a regression in 3.2 and above. Yes, in 3.2, so it is old enough. If this were a regression in 3.3, I'd push it for 3.4. > Is there a new policy on regression fixes? I thought this should be queued > for 3.4, 3.3 and 3.2. Otherwise, people will continue to see hangs in those > versions. Well, it was late for the 3.4 merge window and it wasn't clear whether or not the patch was a regression fix at that time. It is not very straightforward and in my opinion it should be tested a bit wider before it goes into -stable. So as I said, v3.5 is the target with whatever -stable trees are relevant at the time the patch is merged. Thanks, Rafael