On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 02:19:07PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Tue 2020-05-19 14:13:56, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 02:06:25PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > > [ Upstream commit 6f7c9caf017be8ab0fe3b99509580d0793bf0833 ] > > > > > > > > Replace negations of nft_rbtree_interval_end() with a new helper, > > > > nft_rbtree_interval_start(), wherever this helps to visualise the > > > > problem at hand, that is, for all the occurrences except for the > > > > comparison against given flags in __nft_rbtree_get(). > > > > > > > > This gets especially useful in the next patch. > > > > > > This looks like cleanup in preparation for the next patch. Next patch > > > is there for some series, but not for 4.19.124. Should this be in > > > 4.19, then? > > > > What is the "next patch" in this situation? > > In 5.4 you have: > > 9956 O Greg Kroah ├─>[PATCH 5.4 082/147] netfilter: nft_set_rbtree: Introduce and use nft > 9957 Greg Kroah ├─>[PATCH 5.4 083/147] netfilter: nft_set_rbtree: Add missing expired c > > In 4.19 you have: > > 10373 r Greg Kroah ├─>[PATCH 4.19 41/80] netfilter: nft_set_rbtree: Introduce and use nft > 10376 O Greg Kroah ├─>[PATCH 4.19 42/80] IB/mlx4: Test return value of calls to ib_get_ca > > I believe 41/80 can be dropped from 4.19 series, as it is just a > preparation for 083/147... which is not queued for 4.19. I've queued it up for 4.19 now, thanks. greg k-h
