From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:33888 "EHLO out2-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753595AbcI0Hco (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Sep 2016 03:32:44 -0400 Message-ID: <1474961556.32271.9.camel@themaw.net> Subject: Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] autofs: use dentry flags to block walks during expire" failed to apply to 4.4-stable tree From: Ian Kent To: Greg KH Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, neilb@suse.com, stable@vger.kernel.org, tiwai@suse.de, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:32:36 +0800 In-Reply-To: <20160927070559.GA4448@kroah.com> References: <1474876607177204@kroah.com> <1474959270.32271.5.camel@themaw.net> <20160927070559.GA4448@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 09:05 +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 02:54:30PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote: > > On Mon, 2016-09-26 at 09:56 +0200, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote: > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > > The patch below does not apply to the 4.4-stable tree. > > > If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm > > > tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit > > > id to . > > > > There is another bug fix from Al Viro upon which this path depends which has > > not > > been included in the stable tree. > > > > I recommend that I backport both patches. > > Is that acceptable? > > Sure, or just give me the git commit id of the patch and I will queue it > up as well before I apply this one. There were some other changes to log prints as well, so they both need to be back ported. > > > Should I include a cover description for the two patches explaining the need > > for > > the additional patch or just post the two patches to < > > stable@vgegr.kernel.org>? > > Well, the correct address would be the good thing to use :) LOL, oh, didn't notice that ... > > Other than that, either way is fine. OK, I presume including the Linux tree commit id in each patch description is sufficient, unless there's some specific format you need? > > thanks, > > greg k-h