| Message ID | 20240906132816.657485-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | net: hsr: Use the seqnr lock for frames received via interlink port. | expand |
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? > 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.
Hello: This series was applied to netdev/net-next.git (main) by Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>: On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 15:25:30 +0200 you wrote: > This is follow-up to the thread at > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240904133725.1073963-1-edumazet@google.com/ > > I hope the two patches in a series targeting different trees is okay. > Otherwise I will resend. > > Sebastian Here is the summary with links: - [net,1/2] net: hsr: Use the seqnr lock for frames received via interlink port. https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/430d67bdcb04 - [net-next,2/2] net: hsr: Remove interlink_sequence_nr. https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/35e24f28c2e9 You are awesome, thank you!
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
On Thu, 12 Sep 2024 08:51:55 +0200 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > 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 Yeah, the plural "you", but still my bad for not putting two and two together :S > 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? I have a potentially very stupid plan to squash the revert into the cross merge..
On 2024-09-12 17:14:13 [-0700], Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Thu, 12 Sep 2024 08:51:55 +0200 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > 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 > > Yeah, the plural "you", but still my bad for not putting two > and two together :S Oh I'm sorry, I didn't pay attention ;) > > 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? > > I have a potentially very stupid plan to squash the revert into > the cross merge.. Whatever works best for you. I will probably send the revert+patch to Greg for stable once he asks for it. Sebastian