On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:26:52 AM Dirk Brandewie wrote: > On 02/18/2014 04:53 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 04:35:26 PM Dirk Brandewie wrote: > >> On 02/18/2014 04:43 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 04:24:02 PM Dirk Brandewie wrote: > >>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@rjwysocki.net> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 03:53:48 PM Dirk Brandewie wrote: > >>>>>> On 02/18/2014 02:27 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 12:29:54 PM Dirk Brandewie wrote: > >>>>>>>> Hi Rafael, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 02/12/2014 10:01 AM, dirk.brande...@gmail.com <javascript:;>wrote: > >>>>>>>>> From: Dirk Brandewie <dirk.j.brande...@intel.com <javascript:;>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Based on v3.14-rc2 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Patch 1 removes energy reporting the patch from Maurizio Lambardi > >>>>>>>>> intel_pstate: fix race condition in intel_pstate_init() can be > >>>>> dropped. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Any reason why patches 2-5 did not make rc3 other than timing? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Patches 2/3 can easily wait for v3.15.x > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Patches 4/5 fix bugs that are in the wild. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I asked you about them, but you didn't reply: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=139225158531023&w=4 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Again, do patches [4-5/5] depend on [2-3/5]? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If not, I can queue them up for -rc4. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> All the patches are independent of one another. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Patch 2 is straight cleanup no functional change but reduces the memory > >>>>>> footprint slightly. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Patch 3 is a bug that will only be seen when the PID is reset at init > >>>>> time > >>>>>> or when a change is made to PID params via debugfs. The problem will > >>>>> only > >>>>>> exist for one sample time since it is setting last_err in the PID. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Patch 4-5 are bugs found during Baytrail-T testing > >>>>> > >>>>> Are there any pointers to bug reports that may be included in the > >>>>> changelogs > >>>>> of these? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> No. I got the reports via email. I could probably get the reporters to > >>>> file bugzillas. > >>> > >>> It would be good to add information about what machines are affected > >>> and what the user-visible problems are to the changelogs for future > >>> reference. > >>> > >>> And do we want these two patches in -stable? If so, what -stable series > >>> should > >>> they go into? > >> > >> Patch 2 v3.10+ > >> > >> Patch 3 v3.12+ > > > > You said [2-3/5] were cleanups, so why do you think they are -stable > > material? > > I misspoke these are not stable material
OK -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
