LIRC 0.8.7 Fixes for Maverick
jarod at redhat.com
Fri Oct 15 03:17:33 UTC 2010
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 03:01:23PM -0700, Leann Ogasawara wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 17:09 -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> > There are some bugs starting to crop up from all the upgraders that
> > didn't test during development mainly with i2c and imon remotes. it
> > would be good to try to help some of them. If you think they're not
> > good candidates for SRU's, would you be open to an LBM for ir-core?
> After having examined these patches, I'd lean towards these being
> applied to linux-backports-modules (LBM) rather than directly to the
> Maverick master branch. Reason being is that the 3 additional patches
> Jarod has referenced is actually a bundle of 30 separate commits which
> doesn't exactly comply with our SRU (stable release udpate) policy .
Fair enough. I think a handful of the patches would still qualify for
48f1bba604f1a5a312368bad822d2c03198a3ec3 - fixes a possible oops
9df55dc861c29e43238a5644d13b5e2fb8fcdc84 - fixes a possible oops
1bdba76fc2a0bb3a1ab60ff21fba1bc9cc8fe288 - fixes a possible oops
I'd advocate for these as well, but it would seem they're not SRU
candidates, as its passed beta.
> LBM is a bit more lenient with regards to SRU and is an elective install
> from a user perspective. I'll take a look at getting these bundled for
Note that two of those oops fixes aren't included in the patches I've got
in Fedora yet (they were just authored in the past two days).
> With regards to the 4th patch:
> Now this patch I could see qualifying for SRU.
Hrm, if that qualifies for SRU, I'd advocate for the imon fixes too:
Pretty similar situation, makes a remote behave more completely and/or
accurately, no? (Okay, maybe a stretch, but not a big one).
> And if it were to land
> in an upstream 2.6.35.y stable release, we'd get it automatically. Just
> curious if there are any plans to submit this patch to -stable?
Hadn't given it any thought just yet. Patch has yet to be merged in any
upstream tree, best as I know, and I hadn't really considered it as a
stable series fix, but I guess if you look at it as "fix the lacking HID
layer" instead of "enable support for a new device" it would fly.
jarod at redhat.com
More information about the kernel-team