Re: [PATCH 6.1.y] mptcp: remove duplicate sk_reset_timer call

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Sun, Aug 24, 2025 at 09:45:09AM +0200, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> 24 Aug 2025 09:15:22 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
> 
> > On Sun, Aug 24, 2025 at 09:08:06AM +0200, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> >> Hi Greg, Sasha,
> >>
> >> 24 Aug 2025 09:02:56 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
> >>
> >>> On Sat, Aug 23, 2025 at 10:34:06AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >>>> From: Geliang Tang <geliang@kernel.org>
> >>>>
> >>>> [ Upstream commit 5d13349472ac8abcbcb94407969aa0fdc2e1f1be ]
> >>>>
> >>>> sk_reset_timer() was called twice in mptcp_pm_alloc_anno_list.
> >>>>
> >>>> Simplify the code by using a 'goto' statement to eliminate the
> >>>> duplication.
> >>>>
> >>>> Note that this is not a fix, but it will help backporting the following
> >>>> patch. The same "Fixes" tag has been added for this reason.
> >>>>
> >>>> Fixes: 93f323b9cccc ("mptcp: add a new sysctl add_addr_timeout")
> >>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
> >>>> Reviewed-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@kernel.org>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@kernel.org>
> >>>> Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20250815-net-mptcp-misc-fixes-6-17-rc2-v1-4-521fe9957892@kernel.org
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
> >>>> [ adjusted function location from pm.c to pm_netlink.c ]
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c | 5 ++---
> >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> Didn't apply cleanly :(
> >>
> >> I don't know if it is the reason, but I sent the same patches on Friday:
> >>
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/20250822141124.49727-5-matttbe@kernel.org/T
> >
> > And it didn't apply either?
> >
> > I'm confused...
> 
> It looks like you first applied this other patch from Sasha for 6.1.y:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/20250823145534.2259284-1-sashal@kernel.org
> 
> But this patch includes the one here you are trying to apply, instead of
> depending on it.
> 
> In terms of code, the result is the same, but there is now one commit
> instead of 2. (Which is fine for me)

Ah, thanks for figuring it out, I'll leave it as-is for now, as
unwinding it will be a mess :)

greg "too many stable trees" k-h