netdev - Re: Using interface number probing for usbnet drivers before 3.6-rc1? (was: Re: [PATCH net] net: qmi

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: <20120704144649.GC23020@kroah.com>
Date:	Wed, 4 Jul 2012 07:46:49 -0700
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Using interface number probing for usbnet drivers before
 3.6-rc1? (was: Re: [PATCH net] net: qmi_wwan: fix Gobi device probing)

On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 01:19:35PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> writes:
> > From: Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>
> > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 11:26:54 +0200
> >
> >> Is waiting for 3.6-rc1 the best alternative, or is cherry-picking them
> >> an option?
> >
> > I'm extremely reluctant to have a dependency on another tree.
> >
> > The USB tree, on the other hand, could pull the net-next tree
> > in so you can continue your dependent work there.
> 
> Hello Greg,
> 
> I know I said I would be more careful about cross-tree dependencies, but
> here I am again...
> 
> The context is: How should I proceed with interface number based probing
> for usbnet drivers, in particular qmi_wwan which already has a few
> patches in net-next?
> 
> I see two possible remaining options:
> 
>  1) you pull the net-next changes into usb-next so that I can do the
>     work against usb-next now, or
>  2) I wait for 3.6-rc1 and do the work against the net tree after
>     3.6-rc1 is merged there
> 
> I have decided to go for option #2 unless either of you have other
> preferences, as I believe that is going to cause the least work and
> merge trouble for you both.

What about:
   3) You send the usb interface number matching patches again for them
   to be included in the net-next tree as well, causing duplicates to be
   in linux-next, but allowing you to send your patches into net-next.

That is what we have done at times for other patches, and if David is ok
with it, so am I.  Odds are, the merge will happen automatically, but if
not, I can handle it when 3.6-rc1 comes around.

Sound good?

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html