> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 10:47 AM > > Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 04:10:56PM CET, parav@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > >> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 7:26 AM > >> > >> Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 06:00:38AM CET, parav@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> >To easily audit the code, better to keep the device stop() sequence > >> >to be mirror of the device open() sequence. > >> > > >> >Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Reviewed-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> If this is not fixing bug (which I believe is the case), you should > >> target it to net- next ([patch net-next] ..). > >> > >Yes. Right. First one was fix for net-rc, second was for net-next. And 2nd > depends on the first to avoid merge conflicts. > >So, I was unsure how to handle it. > >Can you please suggest? > > 1) Send the fix to -net > 2) Wait until -net is merged into -net-next > 3) Send the second patch to -net-next Got it. Thanks. Dave, Jakub, Please drop this series. I am sending one by one to net and net-next.
