> On Mar 24, 2020, at 9:01 PM, Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> [This is an automated email]
>
> The bot has tested the following trees: v5.5.11, v5.4.27, v4.19.112, v4.14.174, v4.9.217, v4.4.217.
>
> v5.5.11: Build OK!
> v5.4.27: Build OK!
> v4.19.112: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
> 1863d77f15da ("SUNRPC: Replace the cache_detail->hash_lock with a regular spinlock")
>
> v4.14.174: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
> 1863d77f15da ("SUNRPC: Replace the cache_detail->hash_lock with a regular spinlock")
>
> v4.9.217: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
> 1863d77f15da ("SUNRPC: Replace the cache_detail->hash_lock with a regular spinlock")
> 2b477c00f3bd ("svcrpc: free contexts immediately on PROC_DESTROY")
> 471a930ad7d1 ("SUNRPC: Drop all entries from cache_detail when cache_purge()")
>
> v4.4.217: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
> 1863d77f15da ("SUNRPC: Replace the cache_detail->hash_lock with a regular spinlock")
> 2b477c00f3bd ("svcrpc: free contexts immediately on PROC_DESTROY")
> 471a930ad7d1 ("SUNRPC: Drop all entries from cache_detail when cache_purge()")
> d8d29138b17c ("sunrpc: remove 'inuse' flag from struct cache_detail.")
>
>
> NOTE: The patch will not be queued to stable trees until it is upstream.
>
> How should we proceed with this patch?
Please drop it. Thanks!
--
Chuck Lever
