Hi Sasha,
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 9:45 PM Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org 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: all
The bot has tested the following trees: v5.0.5, v4.19.32, v4.14.109, v4.9.166, v4.4.177, v3.18.137.
v5.0.5: Build OK! v4.19.32: Build OK! v4.14.109: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:... v4.9.166: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:... v4.4.177: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:... v3.18.137: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:...
How should we proceed with this patch?
As highlighted in the stable notes for the series, the regression happened in 4.15, sounds like I should have added some `# 4.15.x` after the stable cc?
So we are ok with having the series applied to 4.19 and 5.0 only.
Thank you!
-- Thanks, Sasha
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 07:45:05PM +0800, Nicolas Boichat wrote:
Hi Sasha,
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 9:45 PM Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org 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: all
The bot has tested the following trees: v5.0.5, v4.19.32, v4.14.109, v4.9.166, v4.4.177, v3.18.137.
v5.0.5: Build OK! v4.19.32: Build OK! v4.14.109: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:... v4.9.166: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:... v4.4.177: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:... v3.18.137: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:...
How should we proceed with this patch?
As highlighted in the stable notes for the series, the regression happened in 4.15, sounds like I should have added some `# 4.15.x` after the stable cc?
So we are ok with having the series applied to 4.19 and 5.0 only.
That is fine, thanks!
greg k-h
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org