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 <[email protected]> >>> Cc: <[email protected]> # 3.10+: 27ddcc6596e5: PM / sleep: Add state >>> field to pm_states[] entries >>> Cc: <[email protected]> # 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 [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
