Hi Sasha,

On 1/16/19 2:36 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:

Hi,

[This is an automated email]

This commit has been processed because it contains a -stable tag. The stable tag indicates that it's relevant for the following trees: 2.6.26+

The bot has tested the following trees: v4.20.2, v4.19.15, v4.14.93, v4.9.150, v4.4.170, v3.18.132.

v4.20.2: Build OK! v4.19.15: Build OK! v4.14.93: Build OK! v4.9.150: Build OK! v4.4.170: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies: 2b5f5f5dc114 ("can: bcm: unify bcm_msg_head handling and prepare function parameters") 6f3b911d5f29 ("can: bcm: add support for CAN FD frames") 72c8a89ad2e4 ("can: bcm: use CAN frame instead of can_frame in comments") 95acb490ec51 ("can: bcm: fix indention and other minor style issues")

v3.18.132: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies: 069f8457ae52 ("can: fix spelling errors") 2b5f5f5dc114 ("can: bcm: unify bcm_msg_head handling and prepare function parameters") 6ce8e9ce5989 ("new helper: memcpy_from_msg()") 6f3b911d5f29 ("can: bcm: add support for CAN FD frames") 72c8a89ad2e4 ("can: bcm: use CAN frame instead of can_frame in comments") 95acb490ec51 ("can: bcm: fix indention and other minor style issues") ba61a8d9d780 ("can: avoid using timeval for uapi")

How should we proceed with this patch?

Applying the patch on e.g. 3.2.102 also leads to

patching file net/can/bcm.c Hunk #1 FAILED at 67. Hunk #2 FAILED at 140. Hunk #3 succeeded at 847 with fuzz 2 (offset -26 lines). Hunk #4 succeeded at 1018 with fuzz 2 (offset -39 lines). 2 out of 4 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file net/can/bcm.c.rej

The first two hunks just adding a define and and function *somewhere* at the top of the C file.

I can provide patches for the requested stable kernels once we have a reference for the upstream commit hash.

Would that be ok for you?

Best regards, Oliver