On Fri, 2017-01-06 at 16:27 -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 13:37:20 +0100 > > > Here's another fix for something I noticed while reviewing the code > in > > a new suggested patch that added another netlink socket destroy > path. > > > > Since the new patch would otherwise cause conflicts, it might be > good > > to pull net or Linus's next RC containing it into net-next, if you > can. > > > > Please pull and let me know if there's any problem. > > Pulled, Thanks :) > I'll try to get this moving into net-next over the weekend. > Remind me about this early next week if that ends up slipping through > the cracks. Actually, I just got the new version of the other patch and it turns out that it's not necessary since the context for that new bit is small enough to not have included the difference - so since you haven't done that yet, no need to bother, sorry I didn't realize that earlier. johannes
