From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758639AbZIQNJR (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:09:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758551AbZIQNJQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:09:16 -0400 Received: from bamako.nerim.net ([62.4.17.28]:60826 "EHLO bamako.nerim.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758457AbZIQNJQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:09:16 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:09:17 +0200 From: Jean Delvare To: Greg KH Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jesse Barnes , stable@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, stable-review@kernel.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Subject: Re: [stable] [patch 44/45] PCI: Unhide the SMBus on the Compaq Evo D510 USDT Message-ID: <20090917150917.3d7d28b8@hyperion.delvare> In-Reply-To: <20090917113853.GA3061@kroah.com> References: <20090916223613.597295240@mini.kroah.org> <20090916223719.861500408@mini.kroah.org> <20090917095823.12682531@hyperion.delvare> <20090917113853.GA3061@kroah.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.5.0 (GTK+ 2.14.4; i586-suse-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 04:38:53 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 09:58:23AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > > > On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:36:57 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > 2.6.31-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know. > > > > > > ------------------ > > > From: Jean Delvare > > > > > > commit 6b5096e4d4496e185cd1ada5d1b8e1d941c805ed upstream. > > > > > > One more form factor for Compaq Evo D510, which needs the same quirk > > > as the other form factors. Apparently there's no hardware monitoring > > > chip on that one, but SPD EEPROMs, so it's still worth unhiding the > > > SMBus. > > > > FWIW, this one doesn't strike me as being needed in -stable. While it > > should be safe (otherwise it wouldn't have gone upstream in the first > > place), it hardly fulfills -stable's requirement that "it must fix a > > real bug that bothers people". There's no hardware monitoring chip on > > the SMBus on this machine, and people can easily live without detailed > > memory module information. > > > > So it's up to you, but I won't cry if you drop this patch from -stable. > > Heh, you were the one that originally cc:ed the patch to > stable@kernel.org, so I figured you wanted it in. That would be the other me then. Because the first me just double checked that he hadn't Cc'd stable@kernel.org on this one patch ;) > Quirks like this are simple to add, I have no problem taking it, so > might as well leave it. Up to you, I don't care either way. -- Jean Delvare