On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 11:25:25AM -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 11:03 AM Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> 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: all The bot has tested the following trees: v5.6.7, v5.4.35, v4.19.118, v4.14.177, v4.9.220, v4.4.220. v5.6.7: Build OK! v5.4.35: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies: Unable to calculate v4.19.118: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies: 07d02a67b7fa ("SUNRPC: Simplify lookup code") 3453d5708b33 ("NFSv4.1: Avoid false retries when RPC calls are interrupted") 5c441544f045 ("NFSv4.x: Handle bad/dead sessions correctly in nfs41_sequence_process()") 79b181810285 ("SUNRPC: Convert auth creds to use refcount_t") 8276c902bbe9 ("SUNRPC: remove uid and gid from struct auth_cred") 95cd623250ad ("SUNRPC: Clean up the AUTH cache code") 97f68c6b02e0 ("SUNRPC: add 'struct cred *' to auth_cred and rpc_cred") a52458b48af1 ("NFS/NFSD/SUNRPC: replace generic creds with 'struct cred'.") fc0664fd9bcc ("SUNRPC: remove groupinfo from struct auth_cred.") v4.14.177: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies: 07d02a67b7fa ("SUNRPC: Simplify lookup code") 12f275cdd163 ("NFSv4: Retry CLOSE and DELEGRETURN on NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID.") 1eb5d98f16f6 ("nfs: convert to new i_version API") 3453d5708b33 ("NFSv4.1: Avoid false retries when RPC calls are interrupted") 35156bfff3c0 ("NFSv4: Fix the nfs_inode_set_delegation() arguments") 5c441544f045 ("NFSv4.x: Handle bad/dead sessions correctly in nfs41_sequence_process()") 79b181810285 ("SUNRPC: Convert auth creds to use refcount_t") 95cd623250ad ("SUNRPC: Clean up the AUTH cache code") 97f68c6b02e0 ("SUNRPC: add 'struct cred *' to auth_cred and rpc_cred") a52458b48af1 ("NFS/NFSD/SUNRPC: replace generic creds with 'struct cred'.") b3dce6a2f060 ("pnfs/blocklayout: handle transient devices") fc0664fd9bcc ("SUNRPC: remove groupinfo from struct auth_cred.") v4.9.220: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies: 172d9de15a0d ("NFS: Change nfs4_get_session() to take an nfs_client structure") 3453d5708b33 ("NFSv4.1: Avoid false retries when RPC calls are interrupted") 3be0f80b5fe9 ("NFSv4.1: Fix up replays of interrupted requests") 42e1cca7e91e ("NFS: Change nfs4_setup_sequence() to take an nfs_client structure") 5c441544f045 ("NFSv4.x: Handle bad/dead sessions correctly in nfs41_sequence_process()") 6de7e12f53a1 ("NFS: Use nfs4_setup_sequence() everywhere") 7981c8a65914 ("NFS: Create a single nfs4_setup_sequence() function") efc6f4aa742d ("NFS: Move nfs4_get_session() into nfs4_session.h") v4.4.220: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies: 172d9de15a0d ("NFS: Change nfs4_get_session() to take an nfs_client structure") 3453d5708b33 ("NFSv4.1: Avoid false retries when RPC calls are interrupted") 3be0f80b5fe9 ("NFSv4.1: Fix up replays of interrupted requests") 42e1cca7e91e ("NFS: Change nfs4_setup_sequence() to take an nfs_client structure") 5c441544f045 ("NFSv4.x: Handle bad/dead sessions correctly in nfs41_sequence_process()") 5f83d86cf531 ("NFSv4.x: Fix wraparound issues when validing the callback sequence id") 68d264cf02b0 ("NFS42: handle layoutstats stateid error") 6de7e12f53a1 ("NFS: Use nfs4_setup_sequence() everywhere") 80f9642724af ("NFSv4.x: Enforce the ca_maxresponsesize_cached on the back channel") 810d82e68301 ("NFSv4.x: Allow multiple callbacks in flight") 9a0fe86745b8 ("pNFS: Handle NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID correctly in LAYOUTSTAT calls") efc6f4aa742d ("NFS: Move nfs4_get_session() into nfs4_session.h") f74a834a0e1b ("NFSv4.x: CB_SEQUENCE should return NFS4ERR_DELAY if still executing") NOTE: The patch will not be queued to stable trees until it is upstream. How should we proceed with this patch?Trond, This is my first time trying to mark the patch as something that should be back ported. What's the right approach? I couldn't find a patch that would make sense to say that this patch "fixes". Should I just pick one of them (maybe "SUNRPC: Allow creation of RPC clients with multiple connections" (612b41f808a))? I should have said that this only needs to be fixed up to when the feature was included which was 5.3. The fact that I doesn't apply to 5.4 is the only problem I see needs to be looked at / addressed.
Hi Olga, You can add annotate the stable tag with versions of the branches you want it to be included in. For example here you could do: CC: stable@xxxxxxxxxx # 5.3+ -- Thanks, Sasha
