LIRC 0.8.7 Fixes for Maverick

[Jarod Wilson]

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 [1].

Fair enough. I think a handful of the patches would still qualify for
SRU though.

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.

c9889354c6d36d6278ed851c74ace02d72efdd59
e081b5aead012579740501220624cafc35f22510

> 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
> LBM.

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:
> 
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/161481/
> 
> Now this patch I could see qualifying for SRU.

Hrm, if that qualifies for SRU, I'd advocate for the imon fixes too:

04c9c7d7135d0504638e02603dafa714e8d58945
4d2acb4e7a23d47b8792bce34cf874da24193ce2
08d23a4d7bf43cd7246f6546ddeab8c25d5d4e45
e156b731596795714f1428c4ec00fe9f5468e083

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 Wilson
jarod at redhat.com