On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 02:19:07PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
On Tue 2020-05-19 14:13:56, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 02:06:25PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
[ Upstream commit 6f7c9caf017be8ab0fe3b99509580d0793bf0833 ]
Replace negations of nft_rbtree_interval_end() with a new helper, nft_rbtree_interval_start(), wherever this helps to visualise the problem at hand, that is, for all the occurrences except for the comparison against given flags in __nft_rbtree_get().
This gets especially useful in the next patch.
This looks like cleanup in preparation for the next patch. Next patch is there for some series, but not for 4.19.124. Should this be in 4.19, then?
What is the "next patch" in this situation?
In 5.4 you have:
9956 O Greg Kroah ├─>[PATCH 5.4 082/147] netfilter: nft_set_rbtree: Introduce and use nft 9957 Greg Kroah ├─>[PATCH 5.4 083/147] netfilter: nft_set_rbtree: Add missing expired c
In 4.19 you have:
10373 r Greg Kroah ├─>[PATCH 4.19 41/80] netfilter: nft_set_rbtree: Introduce and use nft 10376 O Greg Kroah ├─>[PATCH 4.19 42/80] IB/mlx4: Test return value of calls to ib_get_ca
I believe 41/80 can be dropped from 4.19 series, as it is just a preparation for 083/147... which is not queued for 4.19.
I've queued it up for 4.19 now, thanks.
greg k-h