From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet•com>
To: Mathias Krause <minipli@googlemail•com>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor•apana.org.au>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft•net>, <netdev@vger•kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec 0/3] vti/vti6: minor tweaks + one fix
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:19:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140630091913.GO32371@secunet.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+rthh_bMBk8mC3FWgNrGtnnyN_tMa8scoXvkFGzV0OA6ug_bg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 10:38:32PM +0200, Mathias Krause wrote:
> On 13 May 2014 10:41, Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet•com> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 11:43:39PM +0200, Mathias Krause wrote:
> >> Hi Steffen,
> >>
> >> this series addresses a few issues related to VTI. The first patch fixes
> >> a bug in the vti6 module calling unregister_pernet_device() twice in the
> >> error path. That's probably material for ipsec.git.
> >> The second patch simplifies the error handling path in module init/fini
> >> of vti6. The third patch does the same for vti. Those two are probably
> >> material for ipsec-next.git as we're at -rc5 already. But I leave that
> >> decision to you.
> >
> > Right, patches two and three should go to ipsec-next. But the second
> > patch does not apply without the first patch. Please send separate
> > patchsets for ipsec and ipsec-next in future.
>
> Patch 2 depends on patch 1 because it's a series ;) I explicitly
> didn't want to create different patches for ipsec-next because I
> wanted to avoid the merge conflicts on your side when ipsec-next would
> rebase to/merge a tree which would contain patch 1.
> One way to solve it would be to merge ipsec/master into
> ipsec-next/master prior to applying patches 2 and 3 -- just as Dave
> does with net-next from time to time, i.e. merging net/master. Another
> way would be to wait until Dave has merged ipsec/master into
> net/master and after that, has merged net/master into net-next. This
> way you can merge net-next into ipsec-next and after that apply
> patches 2 and 3 without conflicts. Your choice. You know the
> interdependencies between these trees better than me. But the first
> solution sounds simpler to me. ;)
>
I've applied the remaining two patches to ipsec-next now, thanks!
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-30 9:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-09 21:43 [PATCH ipsec 0/3] vti/vti6: minor tweaks + one fix Mathias Krause
2014-05-09 21:43 ` [PATCH ipsec 1/3] vti6: Don't unregister pernet ops twice on init errors Mathias Krause
2014-05-13 8:35 ` Steffen Klassert
2014-05-09 21:43 ` [PATCH ipsec 2/3] vti6: Simplify error handling in module init and exit Mathias Krause
2014-05-09 21:43 ` [PATCH ipsec 3/3] vti: " Mathias Krause
2014-05-13 8:41 ` [PATCH ipsec 0/3] vti/vti6: minor tweaks + one fix Steffen Klassert
2014-05-13 20:38 ` Mathias Krause
2014-06-30 9:19 ` Steffen Klassert [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140630091913.GO32371@secunet.com \
--to=steffen.klassert@secunet$(echo .)com \
--cc=davem@davemloft$(echo .)net \
--cc=herbert@gondor$(echo .)apana.org.au \
--cc=minipli@googlemail$(echo .)com \
--cc=netdev@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox