On Thu, 2023-01-12 at 10:51 +0000, Andre Przywara wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 21:31:43 -0800 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hm, we have a patch in net-next which reformats the entries: > > ec51fbd1b8a2bca2948dede99c14ec63dc57ff6b > > > > Would you like this ID to be also added in stable? We could just > > apply it to net, and deal with the conflict locally. But if you > > don't care about older kernels then better if you rebase. > > Stable would be nice, but only to v6.1. I think I don't care > about older kernels. > So what about if I resend this one here, based on top of the reformat > patch, with a: > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 6.1.x > line in there, and then reply to the email that the automatic backport > failed, with a tailored patch for v6.1? > Alternatively I can send an explicit stable backport email once this one > is merged. Note that we can merge this kind of changes via the -net tree. No repost will be needed. We can merge it as is on -net and you can follow the option 2 from the stable kernel rules doc, with no repost nor additional mangling for stable will be needed. If you are ok with the above let me know. Thanks, Paolo
