[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181009092154.GC19241@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:21:54 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Andre Tomt <andre@...t.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux@...ck-us.net, shuah@...nel.org,
patches@...nelci.org, ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk,
lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.18 000/168] 4.18.13-stable review
On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 05:21:31AM +0200, Andre Tomt wrote:
> On 08. okt. 2018 20:29, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.18.13 release.
> > There are 168 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> > let me know.
>
> CC [M] net/ipv4/netfilter/nf_conntrack_proto_icmp.o
> net/ipv4/netfilter/nf_conntrack_proto_icmp.c:373:3: error: ‘const struct
> nf_conntrack_l4proto’ has no member named ‘ctnl_timeout’; did you mean
> ‘get_timeouts’?
> .ctnl_timeout = {
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~
> get_timeouts
>
> The problematic patch is:> netfilter-conntrack-timeout-interface-depend-on-config_nf_conntrack_timeout.patch
>
> The stuff the commit message talks about seems like it was added in
> 4.19-rc1, so this should not go into stable.
>
> Kernel builds fine with this one patch reverted.
So you have CONFIG_NF_CT_NETLINK_TIMEOUT enabled but not
CONFIG_NF_NETLINK_TIMEOUT? Looks like we just need to modify the .h
file to fix this up properly, right?
This isn't showing up in my build tests as that configuration seems a
bit odd to me.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists