On 2/2/21 10:30 AM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote: > > > On 02.02.21 16:35, David Ahern wrote: >> On 2/2/21 3:48 AM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote: >>> >>> Are you sure this patch is correctly assigned to iproute2-next? >>> >>> IMO it has to be applied to iproute2 as the functionality is already in >>> v5.11 which is in rc6 right now. >>> >> >> new features land in iproute2-next just as they do for the kernel with >> net-next. >> >> Patches adding support for kernel features should be sent in the same >> development window if you want the iproute2 support to match kernel >> version. >> > > Oh, I followed the commits from iproute2 until the new include files > from (in this case) 5.11 pre rc1 had been updated (on 2020-12-24): > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2.git/commit/?id=2953235e61eb672bbdd2de84eb5b91c388f9a9b5 > > > I thought the uapi updates in iproute2 are *always* pulled from the > kernel and not from iprout2-next which was new to me. I sync kernel headers for iproute2-next with net-next, not linux-next. > > Do you expect patches for iproute2-next when the relevant changes become > available in linux-next then? > > Even though I did not know about iproute2-next the patch is needed for > the 5.11 kernel (as written in the subject). > >From a cursory look it appears CAN commits do not go through the netdev tree yet the code is under net/can and the admin tool is through iproute2 and netdevs. Why is that? If features patches flowed through net-next, we would not have this problem.
