* Re: [PATCH 3/3] sunrpc: clean up properly in gss_mech_unregister()
2020-05-26 0:23 ` [PATCH 3/3] sunrpc: clean up properly in gss_mech_unregister() Sasha Levin
@ 2020-05-26 0:50 ` NeilBrown
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: NeilBrown @ 2020-05-26 0:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sasha Levin, Sasha Levin, J. Bruce Fields; +Cc: linux-nfs, stable
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1301 bytes --]
On Tue, May 26 2020, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Hi
>
> [This is an automated email]
>
> This commit has been processed because it contains a -stable tag.
> The stable tag indicates that it's relevant for the following trees: 2.6.12+
>
> The bot has tested the following trees: v5.6.14, v5.4.42, v4.19.124, v4.14.181, v4.9.224, v4.4.224.
>
> v5.6.14: Build OK!
> v5.4.42: Build OK!
> v4.19.124: Build OK!
> v4.14.181: Build OK!
> v4.9.224: Build OK!
> v4.4.224: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
> 302d3deb2068 ("xprtrdma: Prevent inline overflow")
> 65b80179f9b8 ("xprtrdma: No direct data placement with krb5i and krb5p")
> 94f58c58c0b4 ("xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously")
> cce6deeb56aa ("xprtrdma: Avoid using Write list for small NFS READ requests")
>
>
> NOTE: The patch will not be queued to stable trees until it is upstream.
>
> How should we proceed with this patch?
The conflict is trivial - this patch adds a field (domain) to 'struct pf_desc"
which at the time didn't have an expected field (datatouch).
You can merge it manually or ask me when the time comes and I'll provide
a backport.
(65b80179f9b8 is the textual dependency, but it is no a semantic
dependency).
NeilBrown
>
> --
> Thanks
> Sasha
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread