From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9389C433DF for ; Tue, 19 May 2020 12:51:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1B6520823 for ; Tue, 19 May 2020 12:51:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1589892676; bh=tJ+lbCmEDAHdv4K7nzW2AGiccqfTHL/sgR11LJYMowM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=iasJg4p9Lf28Akdc6QUdaEEF1omiCKSBeR1ME3nguwPyu3dcT6QEnyjo/EZxBTYgV 9G2LTlIxyqnK9XoBj+vK6T8Bopqrm5pHohMNPcPSvjfHqBuDa6zfbMYH7BEY5yGNgR gqMB/U9vF2XSYrbt8+OzvCvsn7r1ypbNFJHrhe0g= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728757AbgESMvQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 May 2020 08:51:16 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:47360 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728745AbgESMvQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 May 2020 08:51:16 -0400 Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1C1152081A; Tue, 19 May 2020 12:51:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1589892675; bh=tJ+lbCmEDAHdv4K7nzW2AGiccqfTHL/sgR11LJYMowM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=KOn7WhNxFSpIXviYjpvQO4XlUs4zxHNOQNHtOF9l0dIC8oKRIjVRT4b2n6AdiJnOj KGPAlZ8Hn3Ktb33xTtAIo+O/4Av9SEoj9YTA3pQYQmFLh3kk4H44odDxnjJDq+s5Du bOh84qWov/p4rjtPDewSQJbdAoHDa4Jl1iataVvg= Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 14:51:13 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Pavel Machek Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, Stefano Brivio , Pablo Neira Ayuso , Sasha Levin Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 41/80] netfilter: nft_set_rbtree: Introduce and use nft_rbtree_interval_start() Message-ID: <20200519125113.GA376546@kroah.com> References: <20200518173450.097837707@linuxfoundation.org> <20200518173458.612903024@linuxfoundation.org> <20200519120625.GA8342@amd> <20200519121356.GA354164@kroah.com> <20200519121907.GA9158@amd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20200519121907.GA9158@amd> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org 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