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: <5409CE2C.8000609@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 05 Sep 2014 16:52:28 +0200
From:	Francis Moreau <francis.moro@...il.com>
To:	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...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 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 <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).

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.
--
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/