On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 12:45:12AM -0700, 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.wyso...@intel.com> > > > Cc: <sta...@vger.kernel.org> # 3.10+: 27ddcc6596e5: PM / sleep: Add state > > > field to pm_states[] entries > > > Cc: <sta...@vger.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).
If they apply cleanly, then just list the git commit ids, and I can take care of the rest. Don't merge patches together, it just causes problems and makes it harder to track what is going on. thanks, greg k-h -- 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/
