Hi Sasha,
On 1/16/19 2:36 PM, Sasha Levin 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: 2.6.26+
The bot has tested the following trees: v4.20.2, v4.19.15, v4.14.93, v4.9.150, v4.4.170, v3.18.132.
v4.20.2: Build OK!
v4.19.15: Build OK!
v4.14.93: Build OK!
v4.9.150: Build OK!
v4.4.170: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
2b5f5f5dc114 ("can: bcm: unify bcm_msg_head handling and prepare function parameters")
6f3b911d5f29 ("can: bcm: add support for CAN FD frames")
72c8a89ad2e4 ("can: bcm: use CAN frame instead of can_frame in comments")
95acb490ec51 ("can: bcm: fix indention and other minor style issues")
v3.18.132: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
069f8457ae52 ("can: fix spelling errors")
2b5f5f5dc114 ("can: bcm: unify bcm_msg_head handling and prepare function parameters")
6ce8e9ce5989 ("new helper: memcpy_from_msg()")
6f3b911d5f29 ("can: bcm: add support for CAN FD frames")
72c8a89ad2e4 ("can: bcm: use CAN frame instead of can_frame in comments")
95acb490ec51 ("can: bcm: fix indention and other minor style issues")
ba61a8d9d780 ("can: avoid using timeval for uapi")
How should we proceed with this patch?
Applying the patch on e.g. 3.2.102 also leads to
patching file net/can/bcm.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 67.
Hunk #2 FAILED at 140.
Hunk #3 succeeded at 847 with fuzz 2 (offset -26 lines).
Hunk #4 succeeded at 1018 with fuzz 2 (offset -39 lines).
2 out of 4 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file net/can/bcm.c.rej
The first two hunks just adding a define and and function *somewhere* at
the top of the C file.
I can provide patches for the requested stable kernels once we have a
reference for the upstream commit hash.
Would that be ok for you?
Best regards,
Oliver
