From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A388B305E0D for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2025 14:50:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755874211; cv=none; b=Q5viE4DXF9K/rHfnzKgo3rha5nuADTbs+02Ge4cMyKvHOevpRZd1KdqyHsveOZghp2+d7imjdM50V+VZHq0+FLxtQ/dSBobmTE2YpMyYkGiYfD15iokOczwGZSDQZWFLXQKI3qDHFwFN5I9gdWpp4pmFupqDJ6fqwPg/8PBkbw0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755874211; c=relaxed/simple; bh=BIeSo3KdA2BMS7Zcz8ebGH/h4wYfbO5Wn7hXWRf1k2s=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=jz+bhZHG/MiYYRpyEHf2UOapTVtMAX/eWFttKN7LuAZ6S42eXBQ/iAPMgfr1b/ZeVqHyi1urrct53R23Z6ETKdNbQ3fZrx8tTgS/d0R12MF9+li+/QxANENOGGbIGWK2TxC2w+xcxzaE+gyOOvLiHyIRfkssW3Br66xXhHCE85Y= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b=rPmECy62; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b="rPmECy62" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C6510C4CEED; Fri, 22 Aug 2025 14:50:10 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1755874211; bh=BIeSo3KdA2BMS7Zcz8ebGH/h4wYfbO5Wn7hXWRf1k2s=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=rPmECy62iJMMxromwm3QYOrYUov3fVZdM05cFlhkuElQG+OewQn39z3KiW9MQNob2 J/FuuQfCERFoOZGAHkajkhWHuAmcrNd39wQzpdBAmDTMb5NElZMXutS3gYansXOMUs /SWL9kEmx2y/Ze2joQGLUSnCyZQISqfbRmEHtkp4= Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2025 16:50:08 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Matthieu Baerts Cc: kuba@kernel.org, martineau@kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] selftests: mptcp: pm: check flush doesn't reset limits" failed to apply to 5.10-stable tree Message-ID: <2025082249-strangle-thriving-6bf2@gregkh> References: <2025082203-populate-sublease-ef51@gregkh> <017c0cd3-7391-4d53-9e3e-ebdea5fa26da@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <017c0cd3-7391-4d53-9e3e-ebdea5fa26da@kernel.org> On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 04:43:13PM +0200, Matthieu Baerts wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On 22/08/2025 08:05, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote: > > > > The patch below does not apply to the 5.10-stable tree. > > Thank you for the notification! > > > ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ > > > > From 452690be7de2f91cc0de68cb9e95252875b33503 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: "Matthieu Baerts (NGI0)" > > Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 19:28:21 +0200 > > Subject: [PATCH] selftests: mptcp: pm: check flush doesn't reset limits > > > > This modification is linked to the parent commit where the received > > ADD_ADDR limit was accidentally reset when the endpoints were flushed. > > > > To validate that, the test is now flushing endpoints after having set > > new limits, and before checking them. > > > > The 'Fixes' tag here below is the same as the one from the previous > > commit: this patch here is not fixing anything wrong in the selftests, > > but it validates the previous fix for an issue introduced by this commit > > ID. > > The upstream's parent patch has not been queued in v5.10 yet, but I > already got this FAILED notification for this patch here. I guess some > conflicts on your side prevent you to send the last batch of fixes for > v5.10, but they will come at some points. I'm going to send a resolution > for this backport here, because I have it: I hope that's OK. > > (Worst case if this patch is applied and not the parent one: the > selftests will complain the parent patch is missing, which would serve > as a reminder somehow, so that's probably OK :) ) Yes, sorry, I haven't caught up on pending 5.10.y patches yet, thanks for the backport. greg k-h