From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vipul Pandya Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] cxgb4: Allow for backward compatibility with new VPD scheme. Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:23:12 +0530 Message-ID: <513D7F58.1080807@chelsio.com> References: <1362749729-4532-1-git-send-email-vipul@chelsio.com> <20130308.124411.445253877641244372.davem@davemloft.net> <513D70F7.4090708@chelsio.com> <20130311.023009.1276623167785151916.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , Divy Le Ray , Dimitrios Michailidis , Abhishek Agrawal , Santosh Rastapur To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from stargate.chelsio.com ([67.207.112.58]:12991 "EHLO stargate.chelsio.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751392Ab3CKGxR (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Mar 2013 02:53:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130311.023009.1276623167785151916.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11-03-2013 12:00, David Miller wrote: > From: Vipul Pandya > Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:21:51 +0530 > >> >> >> On 08-03-2013 23:14, David Miller wrote: >>> From: Vipul Pandya >>> Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 19:05:29 +0530 >>> >>>> From: Santosh Rastapur >>>> >>>> New scheme calls for 3rd party VPD at offset 0x0 and Chelsio VPD at offset >>>> 0x400 of the function. If no 3rd party VPD is present, then a copy of >>>> Chelsio's VPD will be at offset 0x0 to keep in line with PCI spec which >>>> requires the VPD to be present at offset 0x0. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Santosh Rastapur >>>> Signed-off-by: Vipul Pandya >>> >>> Isn't this a fix which is better targetted at 'net' than 'net-next'? >>> >> >> We have very soon new patch series coming up for net-next. This patch >> requires for that patch series to work correctly. So, we would like to >> get this merge in net-next tree. > > But you can achieve that by asking me to apply this to 'net' and then > when the patch series that depends upon it is posted, you tell me about > this dependency. > Ok. I was not aware of this. However there can be a merge conflict at the time of merging 'net' and 'net-next' tree if this patch gets applied in 'net' tree and our new patch series gets applied in 'net-next'. To avoid it we recommended the same. The merge conflict wont be a major and if it is alright to resolve it we can apply this patch to 'net' tree. Thanks, Vipul