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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 095/108] Bluetooth: btusb: Restore QCA Rome
 suspend/resume fix with a "rewritten" version
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>,
        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>
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>
 <20180216185220.GA29352@roeck-us.net> <20180217134351.GB28145@kroah.com>
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Message-ID: <befd1dc3-32ee-bd00-876e-a59397cffd37@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Sat, 17 Feb 2018 07:12:17 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180217134351.GB28145@kroah.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 02/17/2018 05:43 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:52:20AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> FWIW, here are the various commit SHAs.
>>
>> Upstream:			61f5acea8737
>> v4.15 (queued for v4.15.4):	e766a2d7f7c2
>> v4.14 (queued for v4.14.20):	736385472dfa
>> v4.9 (queued for v4.9.82):	1c6fc2167678
>> v4.4 (queued for v4.4.116):	575538a5371d
>>
>> I didn't check older stable kernels.
> 
> Thanks, but I've now released all of these with this patch committed, so
> we are now "bug compatible" :)
> 

FWIW, seems to me that trying to be "bug compatible" with -rc1 upstream
kernels may not really be a good idea for stable releases.

Guenter