> On Jun 17, 2019, at 5:55 PM, Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 07:14:53PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>> On Jun 15, 2019, at 3:15 PM, Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> [This is an automated email]
>>>
>>> This commit has been processed because it contains a "Fixes:" tag,
>>> fixing commit: ff3cc952d3f0 resource: Add remove_resource interface.
>>>
>>> The bot has tested the following trees: v5.1.9, v4.19.50, v4.14.125, v4.9.181.
>>>
>>> v5.1.9: Build OK!
>>> v4.19.50: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
>>> 010a93bf97c7 ("resource: Fix find_next_iomem_res() iteration issue")
>>> a98959fdbda1 ("resource: Include resource end in walk_*() interfaces")
>>>
>>> v4.14.125: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
>>> 010a93bf97c7 ("resource: Fix find_next_iomem_res() iteration issue")
>>> 0e4c12b45aa8 ("x86/mm, resource: Use PAGE_KERNEL protection for ioremap of memory pages")
>>> 1d2e733b13b4 ("resource: Provide resource struct in resource walk callback")
>>> 4ac2aed837cb ("resource: Consolidate resource walking code")
>>> a98959fdbda1 ("resource: Include resource end in walk_*() interfaces")
>>>
>>> v4.9.181: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
>>> 010a93bf97c7 ("resource: Fix find_next_iomem_res() iteration issue")
>>> 0e4c12b45aa8 ("x86/mm, resource: Use PAGE_KERNEL protection for ioremap of memory pages")
>>> 1d2e733b13b4 ("resource: Provide resource struct in resource walk callback")
>>> 4ac2aed837cb ("resource: Consolidate resource walking code")
>>> 60fe3910bb02 ("kexec_file: Allow arch-specific memory walking for kexec_add_buffer")
>>> a0458284f062 ("powerpc: Add support code for kexec_file_load()")
>>> a98959fdbda1 ("resource: Include resource end in walk_*() interfaces")
>>> da6658859b9c ("powerpc: Change places using CONFIG_KEXEC to use CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE instead.")
>>> ec2b9bfaac44 ("kexec_file: Change kexec_add_buffer to take kexec_buf as argument.")
>>
>> Is there a reason 010a93bf97c7 ("resource: Fix find_next_iomem_res()
>> iteration issue”) was not backported?
>
> Mostly because it's not tagged for stable :)
Good point. Unfortunately, 010a93bf97c7 does not apply cleanly either.
Bjorn, do you think your patch should be backported?
If not, I can create a version of the patch that I sent for 4.14/4.9.
