On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 14:57, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Tobias,
>
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:56:47AM +0100, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
>> } else {
>> - dst->tag_ops = dsa_tag_driver_get(tag_protocol);
>> - if (IS_ERR(dst->tag_ops)) {
>> - if (PTR_ERR(dst->tag_ops) == -ENOPROTOOPT)
>> - return -EPROBE_DEFER;
>> - dev_warn(ds->dev, "No tagger for this switch\n");
>> - dp->master = NULL;
>> - return PTR_ERR(dst->tag_ops);
>> - }
>> + dst->tag_ops = tag_ops;
>> }
>
> This will conflict with George's bug fix for 'net', am I right?
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20210322202650.45776-1-george.mccollister@xxxxxxxxx/
Yes; this version also fixes George's problem I think, as we do not
assign dst->tag_ops until we know it is good, but it will not merge
cleanly.
> Would you mind resending after David merges 'net' into 'net-next'?
Sure thing. Should I then call that v2 or a resend of v1? The patches
will not be identical, so v2 I guess?
> This process usually looks like commit d489ded1a369 ("Merge
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net"). However,
> during this kernel development cycle, I have seen no merge of 'net' into
> 'net-next' since commit 05a59d79793d ("Merge
> git://git.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net"), but that
> comes directly from Linus Torvalds' v5.12-rc2.
>
> Nonetheless, at some point (and sooner rather than later, I think),
> David or Jakub should merge the two trees. I would prefer to do it this
> way because the merge is going to be a bit messy otherwise, and I might
> want to cherry-pick these patches to some trees and it would be nice if
> the history was linear.
>
> Thanks!
