On 07/12/2014 11:11 PM, Christoph Schulz wrote:
Hello!
Alexei Starovoitov schrieb am Sat, 12 Jul 2014 05:59:46 +0200:
However, sk_chk_filter() is not idempotent as it sometimes replaces filter
codes. So running it a second time over the same filter does not work and
It's a good thing not to call sk_chk_filter() twice, but the commit
log is incorrect.
sk_chk_filter() doesn't replace filter codes anymore.
Fair enough. Then how should I correctly proceed to submit this patch which
> fixes a bug in the 3.15 branch (only)? In 3.15.x filter codes _are_ replaced
> (I just checked the code in 3.15.5). And I originally based my analysis on
> 3.15.1. Your statement makes the patch an optional improvement for 3.16.x,
> but it's a necessary fix for 3.15.x. Do I need to submit this patch two times
> with different commit logs?
I think the patch makes sense, and you could submit it against net tree
(so 'PATCH net' in subject) with a slightly different commit log at the
beginning, but the rest could stay explaining that that's the case for
3.15. By that, this could then be picked up into the net tree and thus
Dave can queue it for stable inclusion. If you need any help, let me know.
Thanks again,
Daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ppp" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
