lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Mar]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4.4 04/35] MIPS: Update defconfigs for NF_CT_PROTO_DCCP/UDPLITE change
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 11:42:39AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 04:05:16PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2017-03-16 at 23:29 +0900, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >> > 4.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> >> >
> >> > ------------------
> >> >
> >> > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> >> >
> >> > commit 9ddc16ad8e0bc7742fc96d5aaabc5b8698512cd1 upstream.
> >> >
> >> > In linux-4.10-rc, NF_CT_PROTO_UDPLITE and NF_CT_PROTO_DCCP are bool
> >> > symbols instead of tristate, and kernelci.org reports a bunch of
> >> > warnings for this, like:
> >> >
> >> > arch/mips/configs/malta_kvm_guest_defconfig:63:warning: symbol value 'm' invalid for NF_CT_PROTO_UDPLITE
> >> > arch/mips/configs/malta_defconfig:62:warning: symbol value 'm' invalid for NF_CT_PROTO_DCCP
> >> > arch/mips/configs/malta_defconfig:63:warning: symbol value 'm' invalid for NF_CT_PROTO_UDPLITE
> >> > arch/mips/configs/ip22_defconfig:70:warning: symbol value 'm' invalid for NF_CT_PROTO_DCCP
> >> > arch/mips/configs/ip22_defconfig:71:warning: symbol value 'm' invalid for NF_CT_PROTO_UDPLITE
> >> >
> >> > This changes all the MIPS defconfigs with these symbols to have them
> >> > built-in.
> >> >
> >> > Fixes: 9b91c96c5d1f ("netfilter: conntrack: built-in support for UDPlite")
> >> > Fixes: c51d39010a1b ("netfilter: conntrack: built-in support for DCCP")
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> I don't think this was needed for 4.4 or 4.9, as those symbols were
> >> still tristate type.
> >
> > I don't know, Arnd was the one that reported it to me.
> >
> > Arnd?
>
> I thought I had only reported it for the v4.10-stable tree. I was a bit vague
> about which of the ones I reported were needed on older trees as well,
> but the changelog text is fairly specific.

You reported it there, but then on your other emails for other stable
trees, said that your previously mentioned patches fixed problems in
these trees as well. A bit confusing, sorry I got it wrong.

Anyway, not a big deal, is this worth me reverting? Does this cause an
issue with these arches on older kernels?

thanks,

greg k-h

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-03-20 17:32    [W:0.117 / U:6.288 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site