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:   Thu, 19 Dec 2019 12:34:39 -0500
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
To:     Matt Ranostay <matt.ranostay@konsulko.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@jic23.retrosnub.co.uk>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        stable@vger.kernel.org,
        Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@analog.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
        "open list:IIO SUBSYSTEM AND DRIVERS" <linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.4 105/350] iio: chemical: atlas-ph-sensor: fix
 iio_triggered_buffer_predisable() position
Message-ID: <20191219173439.GM17708@sasha-vm>
References: <20191210210735.9077-1-sashal@kernel.org>
 <20191210210735.9077-66-sashal@kernel.org>
 <20191215155329.4c71ad53@archlinux>
 <CAJCx=gkM8=WCC6t8bjX-q-mDco7HBMdBmJjOQzRHZr4-nKVvcA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJCx=gkM8=WCC6t8bjX-q-mDco7HBMdBmJjOQzRHZr4-nKVvcA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 03:25:27PM -0800, Matt Ranostay wrote:
>On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 7:53 AM Jonathan Cameron
><jic23@jic23.retrosnub.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 16:03:30 -0500
>> Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> > From: Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@analog.com>
>> >
>> > [ Upstream commit 0c8a6e72f3c04bfe92a64e5e0791bfe006aabe08 ]
>> >
>> > The iio_triggered_buffer_{predisable,postenable} functions attach/detach
>> > the poll functions.
>> >
>> > The iio_triggered_buffer_predisable() should be called last, to detach the
>> > poll func after the devices has been suspended.
>> >
>> > The position of iio_triggered_buffer_postenable() is correct.
>> >
>> > Note this is not stable material. It's a fix in the logical
>> > model rather fixing an actual bug.  These are being tidied up
>> > throughout the subsystem to allow more substantial rework that
>> > was blocked by variations in how things were done.
>>
>> See comment.  This is not what I would consider stable material.
>>
>
>Outside of the comment, which really isn't probably enough to avoid
>the autoselection script from detecting it (could be "stable" in the
>message alone selects it :) ),
>is there any way to signal that a patch is "NOT for stable trees"?
>Probably don't want to clutter up the commit messages of course.

That commit message should have been enough, I'll add some more
filtering to catch instances like that.

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha