[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200519125113.GA376546@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 14:51:13 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@...hat.com>,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 41/80] netfilter: nft_set_rbtree: Introduce and use
nft_rbtree_interval_start()
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 02:19:07PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Tue 2020-05-19 14:13:56, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 02:06:25PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > > [ Upstream commit 6f7c9caf017be8ab0fe3b99509580d0793bf0833 ]
> > > >
> > > > Replace negations of nft_rbtree_interval_end() with a new helper,
> > > > nft_rbtree_interval_start(), wherever this helps to visualise the
> > > > problem at hand, that is, for all the occurrences except for the
> > > > comparison against given flags in __nft_rbtree_get().
> > > >
> > > > This gets especially useful in the next patch.
> > >
> > > This looks like cleanup in preparation for the next patch. Next patch
> > > is there for some series, but not for 4.19.124. Should this be in
> > > 4.19, then?
> >
> > What is the "next patch" in this situation?
>
> In 5.4 you have:
>
> 9956 O Greg Kroah ├─>[PATCH 5.4 082/147] netfilter: nft_set_rbtree: Introduce and use nft
> 9957 Greg Kroah ├─>[PATCH 5.4 083/147] netfilter: nft_set_rbtree: Add missing expired c
>
> In 4.19 you have:
>
> 10373 r Greg Kroah ├─>[PATCH 4.19 41/80] netfilter: nft_set_rbtree: Introduce and use nft
> 10376 O Greg Kroah ├─>[PATCH 4.19 42/80] IB/mlx4: Test return value of calls to ib_get_ca
>
> I believe 41/80 can be dropped from 4.19 series, as it is just a
> preparation for 083/147... which is not queued for 4.19.
I've queued it up for 4.19 now, thanks.
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists