linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 065/110] led: core: Fix brightness setting when setting delay

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: <20180206020210.m6gl7vai4p6azb6s@sasha-lappy>
Date:   Tue, 6 Feb 2018 02:02:19 +0000
From:   Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
CC:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matthieu CASTET <matthieu.castet@...rot.com>,
        "linux-leds@...r.kernel.org" <linux-leds@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 065/110] led: core: Fix brightness
 setting when setting delay_off=0

On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 06:17:36PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
>> > > >> *** if brightness=0, led off
>> > > >> *** else apply brightness if next timer <--- timer is stop, and will never apply new setting
>> > > >> ** otherwise set led_set_brightness_nosleep
>> > > >>
>> > > >> To fix that, when we delete the timer, we should clear LED_BLINK_SW.
>> > > >
>> > > >Can you run the tests on the affected stable kernels? I have feeling
>> > > >that the problem described might not be present there.
>> > >
>> > > Hm, I don't seem to have HW to test that out. Maybe someone else does?
>> >
>> > Why are you submitting patches you have no way to test?
>>
>> What?  This is stable tree backporting, why are you trying to make a
>> requirement for something that we have never had before?
>
>I don't think random patches should be sent to stable just because
>they appeared in mainline. Plus, I don't think I'm making new rules:
>
>submit-checklist.rst:
>
>13) Has been build- and runtime tested with and without ``CONFIG_SMP``
>and
>    ``CONFIG_PREEMPT.``
>
>stable-kernel-rules.rst:
>
>Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not,
>into the "-stable" tree:
>
> - It must be obviously correct and tested.
> - It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a
>   problem..." type thing).

So you're saying that this doesn't qualify as a bug?

>> This is a backport of a patch that is already upstream.  If it doesn't
>> belong in a stable tree, great, let us know that, saying why it is so.
>
>See jacek.anaszewski@...il.com 's explanation.

I might be missing something, but Jacek suggested I pull another patch
before this one?

-- 

Thanks,
Sasha