On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 11:40:49AM +0100, Matthieu Baerts wrote: > On 04/03/2024 11:32, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 11:07:01AM +0100, Matthieu Baerts wrote: > >> On 04/03/2024 09:30, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > (...) > > >>> ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ > >>> > >>> From 7092dbee23282b6fcf1313fc64e2b92649ee16e8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > >>> From: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 17:14:12 +0100 > >>> Subject: [PATCH] selftests: mptcp: rm subflow with v4/v4mapped addr > >>> > >>> Now both a v4 address and a v4-mapped address are supported when > >>> destroying a userspace pm subflow, this patch adds a second subflow > >>> to "userspace pm add & remove address" test, and two subflows could > >>> be removed two different ways, one with the v4mapped and one with v4. > >> I don't think it is worth having this patch backported to v6.1: there > >> are a lot of conflicts because this patch depends on many others. Also, > >> many CIs validating stable trees will use the selftests from the last > >> stable version, I suppose. So this new test will be validated on older > >> versions. > >> > >> For v6.6 and v6.7, I can help to fix conflicts. I will just wait for the > >> "queue/6.6" and "queue/6.7" branches to be updated with the latest > >> patches :) > > > > Should all now be up to date, > > Maybe we are not talking about the same thing: are the "queue/X.Y" > branches from the "linux-stable-rc" repo [1] not updated automatically > when patches are added to the "stable-queue" repo [2]? Ah, that, yeah, it somehow automagically works, I have no idea how it does it or what controls it or who uses it, sorry :) > It is just to know which base I use to resolve conflicts :) If it works for you, great! thanks greg k-h
