[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230726084420.1bf95ef9@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 08:44:20 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: "Lin Ma" <linma@....edu.cn>
Cc: "Nikolay Aleksandrov" <razor@...ckwall.org>, davem@...emloft.net,
edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com, idosch@...dia.com,
lucien.xin@...il.com, liuhangbin@...il.com,
edwin.peer@...adcom.com, jiri@...nulli.us,
md.fahad.iqbal.polash@...el.com, anirudh.venkataramanan@...el.com,
jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, neerav.parikh@...el.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rtnetlink: let rtnl_bridge_setlink checks
IFLA_BRIDGE_MODE length
On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 15:49:02 +0800 (GMT+08:00) Lin Ma wrote:
> Cool, I agree with Hangbin that another patch which removes the redundant
> checks in driver is needed.
>
> But I have a simple question. I will send this patch to net one and another
> to net-next one. How can I ensure the latter one depends on the former one?
> Or should I send a patch series to net-next that contains the former one :)
> (I currently choose the method 2 and please let me know if I do this wrong)
You'll need to wait for the patch to propagate before posting.
Our trees merge each Thursday, so if you post on Friday the fix
should be in net-next.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists