On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 07:25:20PM +0800, Su Yue wrote: > On Fri 18 Feb 2022 at 11:36, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 01:40:52PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote: > \ > | ~~~~~~~~~~~~^ > fs/btrfs/ctree.h:1833:1: note: in expansion of macro > \342\200\230BTRFS_SETGET_FUNCS\342\200\231 > 1833 | BTRFS_SETGET_FUNCS(item_size, struct btrfs_item, size, > 32); > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ======================================================================== > > The upstream patchset[1] merged in 5.17-rc1, changed second > parameter > of btrfs_item_size() from btrfs_item * to int directly. > So yes, the backport is wrong. > > I'm not familiar with stable backport progress. Should I file a > patch > using btrfs_item *? Or just drop it? > > The patch is related to 0c982944af27d131d3b74242f3528169f66950ad > but > I wonder why the 0c98294 is not selected automatically. We don't rely on the automatic selection, I evaluate all patches for stable inclusion and add the CC: tag, this works well. Not all patches need to go to stable, but AUTOSEL sometimes picks patches that could be there and if it's not entirely wrong I don't object.
