On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 12:43 -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 04:30:55 -0700 > > > From: Neerav Parikh <neerav.parikh@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Commit id: 014269ff376f552363ecdab78d3d947fbe2237d9 in Linus's tree > > should be queued up for stable 3.14 & 3.15 since the i40e driver will > > not load when DCB is enabled, unless this patch is applied. > > > > In case of any AQ command to query port's DCB configuration fails > > during driver's probe time; the probe fails and returns an error. > > > > This patch prevents this issue by continuing the driver probe even > > when an error is returned. > > > > Also, added an error message to dump the AQ error status to show what > > error caused the failure to get the DCB configuration from firmware. > > > > Change-ID: Ifd5663512588bca684069bb7d4fb586dd72221af > > Signed-off-by: Neerav Parikh <neerav.parikh@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Catherine Sullivan <catherine.sullivan@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@xxxxxxxxx> > > This is a very confusing submission. > > Is this an already applied patch that you want accepted into the -stable > tree? If so, which tree(s)? Sorry, yes. It is current in 3.16.y, and we would like it queued up for 3.14.y and 3.15.y stable trees. I got a bit confused when I went to submit this to stable and saw that networking stable patches were handled differently that other stable patches. I tried to make my request clear by writing that first paragraph in the patch description, but I probably just muddied the water instead. It is just easier, when the developers tell me to begin with that a patch needs to go into stable when they first submit the patch. Which was not the case for this patch, grrr.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part