On 2023/08/16 19:16, Simon Horman wrote: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 05:34:43PM +0800, GONG, Ruiqi wrote: >> From: "GONG, Ruiqi" <gongruiqi1@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> As suggested by Kees[1], replace the old-style 0-element array members >> of multiple structs in ebtables.h with modern C99 flexible array. >> >> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/5E8E0F9C-EE3F-4B0D-B827-DC47397E2A4A@xxxxxxxxxx/ >> >> Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 >> Signed-off-by: GONG, Ruiqi <gongruiqi1@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> >> v2: designate to net-next; cc more netdev maintainers > > It's slightly unclear to me if this should be targeting > net-next or nf-next. But regardless, it doesn't seem > to apply cleanly to the main branch of either tree. I find out that it's because this patch depends on a previous patch I've just sent: [v4] netfilter: ebtables: fix fortify warnings in size_entry_mwt() Maybe I should make them two into a patch set? Otherwise if I adapt this patch to net-next, it won't be applied either if the above patch is applied ... > > Please consider resolving that and posting again, > being sure to allow 24h before postings. > > Link: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/next/process/maintainer-netdev.html >
