[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ffaeb9fe-fd0a-3735-9f72-dded96de6e56@ti.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:05:07 -0600
From: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, <ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org>
CC: <mugunthanvnm@...com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<AStarikovskiy@...con.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] net: ethernet: ti: cpsw: fix susp/resume
On 02/09/2017 07:45 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org>
> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:54:24 +0200
>
>> On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 05:21:26PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org>
>>> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 02:07:34 +0200
>>>
>>>> These two patches fix suspend/resume chain.
>>>
>>> Patch 2 doesn't apply cleanly to the 'net' tree, please
>>> respin this series.
>>
>> Strange, I've just checked it on net-next/master, it was applied w/o any
>> warnings.
>
> It makes no sense to test "net-next" when I am telling you that it is
> the "net" tree it doesn't apply to.
>
> This is a bug fix, so it should be targetting the "net" tree.
>
Looks like the first fix is for net, but the second one is for net-next
I do not see
03fd01ad0eead23eb79294b6fb4d71dcac493855
"net: ethernet: ti: cpsw: don't duplicate ndev_running"
in net.
--
regards,
-grygorii
Powered by blists - more mailing lists