On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 12:39:01 +0100 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Hi, > 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. That sounds good to me, but that will then trigger a merge conflict when net-next (with the reformat patch) is merged? I guess it's easy enough to solve, but that would be extra work on your side. If you are fine with that, it's OK for me. Thanks, Andre
