linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v8 2/2] net: ti: icssg

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e0fe45c7-ea81-4d5f-bb42-6bec73a7d895@lunn.ch>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 15:34:42 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: "Anwar, Md Danish" <a0501179@...com>
Cc: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
	MD Danish Anwar <danishanwar@...com>,
	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Diogo Ivo <diogo.ivo@...mens.com>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
	Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
	Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
	Roger Quadros <rogerq@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, srk@...com,
	Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v8 2/2] net: ti: icssg_prueth: add TAPRIO
 offload support

> When I had posted this series (v8) the ICSSG switch series was not
> merged yet and I had rebased this series on net-next/main. When you
> tested it, the ICSSG Series was merged and as it resulted in conflict.
> 
> I will rebase it on the latest net-next and make sure that their is no
> conflict and post next revision.

This is what i asked about, what are the build dependencies. Please
always state them in the cover note.

In general, we recommend what when you have two or more patch series
for a driver floating around, mark all but one RFC, so you get
comments on them, but it is clear there is no need to try to apply
them because of dependency conflicts.

       Andrew