From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Mon, 20 Mar 2017 17:43:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1]:57666 "EHLO linux-mips.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S23993873AbdCTQntuU-M9 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Mar 2017 17:43:49 +0100 Received: from h7.dl5rb.org.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by h7.dl5rb.org.uk (8.15.2/8.14.8) with ESMTP id v2KGhm2B014259; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 17:43:48 +0100 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by h7.dl5rb.org.uk (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id v2KGhmYU014258; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 17:43:48 +0100 Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 17:43:48 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Ben Hutchings , Linux Kernel Mailing List , stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 04/35] MIPS: Update defconfigs for NF_CT_PROTO_DCCP/UDPLITE change Message-ID: <20170320164347.GG14919@linux-mips.org> References: <20170316142906.685052998@linuxfoundation.org> <20170316142906.994447562@linuxfoundation.org> <1489939516.2852.71.camel@decadent.org.uk> <20170320103052.GB3047@kroah.com> <20170320162930.GA23463@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170320162930.GA23463@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23) Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 57399 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: linux-mips X-List-ID: linux-mips List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: linux-mips On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 05:29:30PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > You reported it there, but then on your other emails for other stable > trees, said that your previously mentioned patches fixed problems in > these trees as well. A bit confusing, sorry I got it wrong. > > Anyway, not a big deal, is this worth me reverting? Does this cause an > issue with these arches on older kernels? Can't imagine this is going to cause an issue and in case of doubt a "y" should be safer than a "m" anyway ... Ralf