cip/linux-5.10.y-cip build: 190 builds: 3 failed, 187 passed, 4 errors, 10 warnings (v5.10.83-cip1-150-ge27e063993d9) Full Build Summary:

Hi! Thank you, applied. Best regards, Pavel -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany

cip/linux-5.10.y-cip sleep: 8 runs, 1 regressions (v5.10.83-cip1-89-ga7f9ee34265b) Regressions Summary ------------------- platform | arch | lab | compiler | defconfig

cip/linux-5.10.y-cip baseline-nfs: 23 runs, 1 regressions (v5.10.83-cip1-89-ga7f9ee34265b) Regressions Summary ------------------- platform | arch | lab | compiler | defconfig |

cip/linux-5.10.y-cip build: 190 builds: 3 failed, 187 passed, 4 errors, 10 warnings (v5.10.83-cip1-89-ga7f9ee34265b) Full Build Summary:

Hi! Thank you. The patches look good to me. You may want to include sha1 hash on the first line of changelog as [ Upstream commit c1833c3964d5bd8c163bd4e01736a38bc473cb8a ] ...as that's what's

I will submit the patches to stable. Thanks. Amy

Hi! Ok, this is really taking nice small steps. Thanks :-). You could help reviewers a bit more by saying "no functional changes" when there are none, but this was already very good job. I could not

Hi! Ok, good. Patches passed testing (zynqmp board has problems but they are not kernel related) and I have pushed them. Best regards, Pavel -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing

Hi! Thank you for answers. Is there reason not to submit it to stable? You are describing it is as a bugfix, and Greg takes those. [Advantages are a) community review, b) less patches to maintain for

We haven't been able to reproduce the issue but apparently it's being reproduced periodically. The offending patch doesn't appear in linux-4.4.y-cip linux-5.10.y-cip has the fix already. Both

Hi Pavel, Thanks for the feedback. I thought it is simple. Since we haven't made any release, history modification and force pushing is not required, as this patch will be part of upcoming

Patch application in unfortunate order is a very common issue in upstream: dependencies are missed, patches take different routes through different maintainer trees, bugs get fixed only after the

Hi! Series looks okay to me. I did not test it but I assume it will pass. I can test/apply it quickly if history modification and force push is not required. I'd like confirmation from rest of the

Hi! Wow. It means changing history. We usually try to avoid that, as it will cause problems for people using git head. But we did not yet do a release with those commits, so it is not completely out

Hi! 0/6 email was not part of the thread, so I missed it in the first look. I see it fixes sysbot report. Do you have special loads where you are hitting these netfilter problems? Are similar fixes

Hi! Ok, let me take a look at the series. But... could you provide some kind of explanation of what these are and why you want them in -cip? These are not usual "hardware enablement"

Appologies for the typo in the subject, that should have been 5 patches.

Hi Pavel, Is it possible to rearrange this patch before [1] and after [2]? [1]

From e6cec303e31d347aa44beb37876fa6763cc0430c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 13:50:03 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 5/5] netfilter: nf_tables: