linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.10.y+] PM / sleep: Use valid_state() for platform-dependent sleep states only

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140905074512.GA12218@brian-ubuntu>
Date:	Fri, 5 Sep 2014 00:45:12 -0700
From:	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
To:	Francis Moreau <francis.moro@...il.com>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.10.y+] PM / sleep: Use valid_state() for
 platform-dependent sleep states only

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 <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> > Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 3.10+: 27ddcc6596e5: PM / sleep: Add state field to pm_states[] entries
> > Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 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).

Related: I don't feel like Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt is very
clear under the "Procedure" section. It lists a series of
non-sequential steps, some of which are mutually exclusive.

Any tips on making my post-merge -stable submissions better are
appreciated. And recommendations on improving the text (or just my
interpretation) of Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt are welcome
too.

Brian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/