Re: [PATCH 6.6.y] mptcp: add needs_id for netlink appending addr

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 12:04:22PM +0100, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On 27/02/2024 11:22, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 10:56:21PM +0100, Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) wrote:
> >> From: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
> >>
> >> Just the same as userspace PM, a new parameter needs_id is added for
> >> in-kernel PM mptcp_pm_nl_append_new_local_addr() too.
> >>
> >> Add a new helper mptcp_pm_has_addr_attr_id() to check whether an address
> >> ID is set from PM or not.
> >>
> >> In mptcp_pm_nl_get_local_id(), needs_id is always true, but in
> >> mptcp_pm_nl_add_addr_doit(), pass mptcp_pm_has_addr_attr_id() to
> >> needs_it.
> >>
> >> Fixes: efd5a4c04e18 ("mptcp: add the address ID assignment bitmap")
> >> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> >> Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
> >> Reviewed-by: Mat Martineau <martineau@kernel.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@kernel.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
> >> (cherry picked from commit 584f3894262634596532cf43a5e782e34a0ce374)
> >> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@kernel.org>
> >> ---
> >> Notes:
> >>  - conflicts in pm_netlink.c because the new helper function expected to
> >>    be on top of mptcp_pm_nl_add_addr_doit() which has been recently
> >>    renamed in commit 1e07938e29c5 ("net: mptcp: rename netlink handlers
> >>    to mptcp_pm_nl_<blah>_{doit,dumpit}").
> >>  - use mptcp_pm_addr_policy instead of mptcp_pm_address_nl_policy, the
> >>    new name after commit 1d0507f46843 ("net: mptcp: convert netlink from
> >>    small_ops to ops").
> >> ---
> >>  net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++-----
> >>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Don't we also need a 5.15.y version of this commit?
> 
> Good point, yes, according to the 'Fixes' tag, we need it as well for
> 5.15.y.
> 
> It looks like no "FAILED: patch" notification has been sent for this
> patch for the 5.15-stable tree. Is it normal?

Hm, odd, I don't know why I didn't send that out, that's a fault on my
side, sorry about that.

So yes, we do need this, I've just now sent the email if you trigger off
of that :)

> I'm asking this because I rely on these notifications to know if I need
> to help to fix conflicts. I don't regularly track if patches we sent
> upstream with 'Cc: stable' & 'Fixes' tags have been backported. It is
> just to know if we need to modify our way of working :)

No, your way of working is WONDERFUL from my side at least, I have no
complaints at all!

thanks,

greg k-h