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.

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