| Message ID | 20210116023937.6225-1-rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: fix vlan filtering for 6250 | expand |
On 17/01/2021 22.08, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > Hi Rasmus, > > On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 03:39:34AM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: >> I finally managed to figure out why enabling VLAN filtering on the >> 6250 broke all (ingressing) traffic, >> cf. https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/6424c14e-bd25-2a06-cf0b-f1a07f9a3604@prevas.dk/ >> . >> >> The first patch is the minimal fix and for net, while the second one >> is a little cleanup for net-next. >> >> Rasmus Villemoes (2): >> net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: also read STU state in mv88e6250_g1_vtu_getnext >> net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: use mv88e6185_g1_vtu_getnext() for the 6250 > > It's strange to put a patch for net and one for net-next in the same > series. Well, maybe, but one is a logical continuation of the other, and including the second one preempted review comments saying "why don't you merge the two implementations". > But is there any reason why you don't just apply the second patch to > "net"? That's not really for me to decide? I thought net was just for the things that needed fixing and should be sent to -stable - which is the only reason I even split this in two, so there's a minimal logical fix for the 6250. Otherwise I'd just have squashed the two, so that I don't add lines only to delete them, along with the rest of the function, later. Jakub, David, it's up to you. Rasmus
On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 14:22:57 +0100 Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > On 17/01/2021 22.08, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > Hi Rasmus, > > > > On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 03:39:34AM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > >> I finally managed to figure out why enabling VLAN filtering on the > >> 6250 broke all (ingressing) traffic, > >> cf. https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/6424c14e-bd25-2a06-cf0b-f1a07f9a3604@prevas.dk/ > >> . > >> > >> The first patch is the minimal fix and for net, while the second one > >> is a little cleanup for net-next. > >> > >> Rasmus Villemoes (2): > >> net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: also read STU state in mv88e6250_g1_vtu_getnext > >> net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: use mv88e6185_g1_vtu_getnext() for the 6250 > > > > It's strange to put a patch for net and one for net-next in the same > > series. > > Well, maybe, but one is a logical continuation of the other, and > including the second one preempted review comments saying "why don't you > merge the two implementations". > > > But is there any reason why you don't just apply the second patch to > > "net"? > > That's not really for me to decide? I thought net was just for the > things that needed fixing and should be sent to -stable - which is the > only reason I even split this in two, so there's a minimal logical fix > for the 6250. Otherwise I'd just have squashed the two, so that I don't > add lines only to delete them, along with the rest of the function, later. > > Jakub, David, it's up to you. Vladimir is right, this is a strange way to post things. In the future please send just the "net" changes first and include a note in the cover letter or under "---" saying something like "cleanup of XYZ is left for a followup in -next". I've applied patch 1 please resend the cleanup after net->net-next merge (~Friday). Thanks!