Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 16 Feb 2018 19:54:39 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        Leif Liddy <leif.linux@gmail.com>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>,
        Daniel Drake <drake@endlessm.com>,
        Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@canonical.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
        Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 095/108] Bluetooth: btusb: Restore QCA Rome
 suspend/resume fix with a "rewritten" version
Message-ID: <20180216185439.GE9616@kroah.com>
References: <20180215151222.267507937@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20180215151235.620152736@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20180216023147.GB69988@rodete-desktop-imager.corp.google.com>
 <20180216064850.GA26224@kroah.com>
 <20180216181043.GA84497@rodete-desktop-imager.corp.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180216181043.GA84497@rodete-desktop-imager.corp.google.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.3 (2018-01-21)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:10:44AM -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 07:48:50AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 06:31:48PM -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 04:17:32PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > 4.4-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > > 
> > > Consider this an objection:
> > > 
> > > I'm currently arguing that this is unnecessarily regressing power
> > > consumption here:
> > > 
> > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10149195/
> > > 
> > > I'll leave it up to you what to do with this, but if this ends up in
> > > Chromium OS kernels, I'm likely to revert it there...
> > 
> > Is that patch in Linus's tree yet?  If so, I'll be glad to also apply it
> > here.
> 
> The link is the original patch, where I'm (too late?) complaining about
> its side effects. Hans and Marcel are discussing potential alternatives.
> This stuff happens in -rc kernels. But you're already ready to push it
> out to -stable users? I can try to push another few reverts into Linus's
> tree if that really helps, or else you can wait on pushing these to
> -stable until 4.16 settles down.

I can drop this for now, but I really like to be "bug compatible" with
Linus's tree if at all possible.  That keeps the pressure on people to
get Linus's tree fixed :)

I'll drop this if the maintainer tells me to do so...

thanks,

greg k-h