Hello.
On 19.10.22 10:17, Miquel Raynal wrote:
Hi Stefan,
stefan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on Wed, 19 Oct 2022 10:06:05 +0200:
Hello.
On 19.10.22 00:03, Miquel Raynal wrote:
Hi Alexander,
aahringo@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Tue, 18 Oct 2022 16:54:13 -0400:
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 2:35 PM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We now have a fine grained filtering information so let's ensure proper
filtering in scan mode, which means that only beacons are processed.
>>
Is this a fixup? Can you resend the whole series please?
Hmm no? Unless I understood things the wrong way, Stefan applied
patches 1 to 7 of my v4, and asked me to make a change on the 8th
patch.
This is v5 just for patch 8/8 of the previous series, I just changed
a debug string actually...
There was a conflict when he applied it but I believe this is because
wpan-next did not contain one of the fixes which made it to Linus' tree
a month ago. So in my branch I still have this fix prior to this patch,
because otherwise there will be a conflict when merging v6.1-rc1 (which
I believe was not done yet).
You believe correctly. :-) In my workflow I normally do not merge in changes from net-next until after my latest pull-request was pulled in. I do this to avoid extra merge commits.
In case I see a merge conflict in my testing before sending the pull request I add merge guidance to the pull. Which is my plan this time around as well.
Do you mean I should drop the fix from my branch and give you a patch
which applies on the current wpan-next instead?
Yes, that is my understanding on rebasing a patch on wpan-next :-)
regards
Stefan Schmidt
