On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 03:53:00PM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote: > On Tue, 19 May 2020 14:51:13 +0200 > Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. > > Wait, wait, sorry. I thought you were queuing this up as a missing > dependency or something, but I see it's not the case. That patch is > *not* the preparation for: > > 340eaff65116 netfilter: nft_set_rbtree: Add missing expired checks > > ...but rather preparation for: > > 7c84d41416d8 netfilter: nft_set_rbtree: Detect partial overlaps on insertion > > whose fix-up: > > 72239f2795fa netfilter: nft_set_rbtree: Drop spurious condition for overlap detection on insertion > > was queued for 5.6.x (see <20200421131431.GA793882@xxxxxxxxx>). > > Now, if you want to backport "Add missing expired checks", it *might* be > more convenient to also backport: > > 6f7c9caf017b netfilter: nft_set_rbtree: Introduce and use nft_rbtree_interval_start() > > and, perhaps (I haven't tried to actually cherry-pick) also: > > 7c84d41416d8 netfilter: nft_set_rbtree: Detect partial overlaps on insertion > 72239f2795fa netfilter: nft_set_rbtree: Drop spurious condition for overlap detection on insertion > > and it's safe to either: > > - backport only 6f7c9caf017b > - backport the three of them > > but other than avoiding conflicts, there should be no reason to do that. > Sasha had already queued them up for 4.19 and 5.4, then dropped them as > they weren't needed, see <20200413163900.GO27528@sasha-vm>. Ok, I'll go drop the patch I just added, thanks for clearing this up. greg k-h
