On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 1:35 AM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 12:34:43PM +0530, Meetakshi Setiya wrote: > > commit fc20c523211a38b87fc850a959cb2149e4fd64b0 upstream > > cifs: fixes for get_inode_info > > requesting backport to 6.8.x, 6.6.x, 6.5.x and 6.1.x > > > > This patch fixes memory leaks, adds error checking, and performs some important > > code modifications to the changes introduced by patch 2 of this patch series: > > https://lore.kernel.org/stable/CAFTVevX6=4qFo6nwV14sCnfPRO9yb9q+YsP3XPaHMsP08E05iQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > commit ffceb7640cbfe6ea60e7769e107451d63a2fe3d3 > > (smb: client: do not defer close open handles to deleted files) > > > > This patch and the three patches in the mails that precede this are related and > > fix an important customer reported bug on the linux smb client (explained in the > > mail for patch 1). Patches 2, 3 and 4 are meant to fix whatever regressions were > > introduced/exposed by patch 1. > > The patches have to be applied in the mentioned order and should be backported > > together. > > Then PLEASE send this as a patch series, as picking patches out of > emails that arrive in random order in a "correct" way is tough, if not > impossible for us to do. > > Please send these as a backported set of patches, OR as a list of > "cherry-pick these git ids in this order" type of thing. But spreading > it out over 4 emails just does not work, and is very very confusing. To make it easier, I recommend we wait a few days on this as there is one more important fix for this series that was recently found (by Paulo) and I haven't sent to Linus yet - then can send the complete set for at least 6.8 and 6.6 stable. Do you prefer a separate email for the 6.8 version of these, and another for the 6.6 rebased version of the series - or all as one email? AFAIK she hasn't rebased for 6.1LTS. -- Thanks, Steve
