On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 11:03 AM Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> 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: all
>
> The bot has tested the following trees: v5.6.7, v5.4.35, v4.19.118, v4.14.177, v4.9.220, v4.4.220.
>
> v5.6.7: Build OK!
> v5.4.35: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
> Unable to calculate
>
> v4.19.118: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
> 07d02a67b7fa ("SUNRPC: Simplify lookup code")
> 3453d5708b33 ("NFSv4.1: Avoid false retries when RPC calls are interrupted")
> 5c441544f045 ("NFSv4.x: Handle bad/dead sessions correctly in nfs41_sequence_process()")
> 79b181810285 ("SUNRPC: Convert auth creds to use refcount_t")
> 8276c902bbe9 ("SUNRPC: remove uid and gid from struct auth_cred")
> 95cd623250ad ("SUNRPC: Clean up the AUTH cache code")
> 97f68c6b02e0 ("SUNRPC: add 'struct cred *' to auth_cred and rpc_cred")
> a52458b48af1 ("NFS/NFSD/SUNRPC: replace generic creds with 'struct cred'.")
> fc0664fd9bcc ("SUNRPC: remove groupinfo from struct auth_cred.")
>
> v4.14.177: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
> 07d02a67b7fa ("SUNRPC: Simplify lookup code")
> 12f275cdd163 ("NFSv4: Retry CLOSE and DELEGRETURN on NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID.")
> 1eb5d98f16f6 ("nfs: convert to new i_version API")
> 3453d5708b33 ("NFSv4.1: Avoid false retries when RPC calls are interrupted")
> 35156bfff3c0 ("NFSv4: Fix the nfs_inode_set_delegation() arguments")
> 5c441544f045 ("NFSv4.x: Handle bad/dead sessions correctly in nfs41_sequence_process()")
> 79b181810285 ("SUNRPC: Convert auth creds to use refcount_t")
> 95cd623250ad ("SUNRPC: Clean up the AUTH cache code")
> 97f68c6b02e0 ("SUNRPC: add 'struct cred *' to auth_cred and rpc_cred")
> a52458b48af1 ("NFS/NFSD/SUNRPC: replace generic creds with 'struct cred'.")
> b3dce6a2f060 ("pnfs/blocklayout: handle transient devices")
> fc0664fd9bcc ("SUNRPC: remove groupinfo from struct auth_cred.")
>
> v4.9.220: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
> 172d9de15a0d ("NFS: Change nfs4_get_session() to take an nfs_client structure")
> 3453d5708b33 ("NFSv4.1: Avoid false retries when RPC calls are interrupted")
> 3be0f80b5fe9 ("NFSv4.1: Fix up replays of interrupted requests")
> 42e1cca7e91e ("NFS: Change nfs4_setup_sequence() to take an nfs_client structure")
> 5c441544f045 ("NFSv4.x: Handle bad/dead sessions correctly in nfs41_sequence_process()")
> 6de7e12f53a1 ("NFS: Use nfs4_setup_sequence() everywhere")
> 7981c8a65914 ("NFS: Create a single nfs4_setup_sequence() function")
> efc6f4aa742d ("NFS: Move nfs4_get_session() into nfs4_session.h")
>
> v4.4.220: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
> 172d9de15a0d ("NFS: Change nfs4_get_session() to take an nfs_client structure")
> 3453d5708b33 ("NFSv4.1: Avoid false retries when RPC calls are interrupted")
> 3be0f80b5fe9 ("NFSv4.1: Fix up replays of interrupted requests")
> 42e1cca7e91e ("NFS: Change nfs4_setup_sequence() to take an nfs_client structure")
> 5c441544f045 ("NFSv4.x: Handle bad/dead sessions correctly in nfs41_sequence_process()")
> 5f83d86cf531 ("NFSv4.x: Fix wraparound issues when validing the callback sequence id")
> 68d264cf02b0 ("NFS42: handle layoutstats stateid error")
> 6de7e12f53a1 ("NFS: Use nfs4_setup_sequence() everywhere")
> 80f9642724af ("NFSv4.x: Enforce the ca_maxresponsesize_cached on the back channel")
> 810d82e68301 ("NFSv4.x: Allow multiple callbacks in flight")
> 9a0fe86745b8 ("pNFS: Handle NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID correctly in LAYOUTSTAT calls")
> efc6f4aa742d ("NFS: Move nfs4_get_session() into nfs4_session.h")
> f74a834a0e1b ("NFSv4.x: CB_SEQUENCE should return NFS4ERR_DELAY if still executing")
>
>
> NOTE: The patch will not be queued to stable trees until it is upstream.
>
> How should we proceed with this patch?
Trond,
This is my first time trying to mark the patch as something that
should be back ported. What's the right approach?
I couldn't find a patch that would make sense to say that this patch
"fixes". Should I just pick one of them (maybe "SUNRPC: Allow creation
of RPC clients with multiple connections" (612b41f808a))?
I should have said that this only needs to be fixed up to when the
feature was included which was 5.3. The fact that I doesn't apply to
5.4 is the only problem I see needs to be looked at / addressed.
>
> --
> Thanks
> Sasha
