[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240912065155.AyiTp0bn@linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 08:51:55 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Lukasz Majewski <lukma@...x.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/2] net: hsr: Use the seqnr lock for frames received
via interlink port.
On 2024-09-11 15:53:24 [-0700], Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 15:25:30 +0200 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > I hope the two patches in a series targeting different trees is okay.
>
> Not really. Out of curiosity did you expect them to be applied
> immediately but separately; or that we would stash half of the
> series somewhere until the trees converge?
1/2 should not clash with 2/2. So one could go to net and the other to
net-next. But now that I know, I won't do it again.
> > Otherwise I will resend.
>
> The fix doesn't look super urgent and with a repost it won't have
> time to get into tomorrow's PR with fixes. So I just pushed them
> both into net-next.
I just noticed that you applied
b3c9e65eb2272 ("net: hsr: remove seqnr_lock")
to net. Patch 1/2 should replace that one and clashes with this one now.
I tried to explain that removing the lock and making it atomic can break
things again.
Should I send a revert of b3c9e65eb2272 to net?
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists