Re: [PATCH ipsec 0/3] vti/vti6: minor tweaks + one fix

[Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.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!