Document why "Rejected" patches were rejected

[warmsocks]

I'm investigating using these patches to backport SMB features and fixes to an older kernel in an embedded device. I was really happy to discover these, but it wasn't clear to me why some patches were "rejected," or by whom or what. This left me wondering if I could/should attempt to backport or apply them myself or if there was something wrong with them (e.g. maybe they caused regressions).

For anyone else with the same question, I fortunately found the answer on the LKML archive in an email from Steve to GKH: The rejected patches couldn't be applied due to VFS changes or global kernel API changes (see excerpt below).

It would have saved me some time if this was in a README file or in the project description.

Nonetheless, thank you very much Steve for creating these patches. They look perfect for my purpose and will improve the security and reliability of the device I'm working on for its users.

Relevant excerpt:

I did a complete backport of all relevant CIFS/SMB3 patches (ie all patches to cifs.ko that
are not dependent on a VFS changes or global kernel API changes) for kernels
4.9 through 4.15
https://github.com/smfrench/smb3-cifs-linux-stable-backports

The individual patches that were included (and in a distinct directory
all cifs patches that were rejected due to global/VFS dependencies)
are also checked in -
https://github.com/smfrench/smb3-backported-patches.

Given the focus on security, these two git trees may be useful for
those who want a cifs.ko which includes all security and functional
improvements and fixes that more closely matches mainline cifs.ko

ref: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAH2r5mvYxpr_0CPZNiNJTGhFNaM06w-EoTT7WS8oVjVZq8HCCw@mail.gmail.com/