Re: [patch 0/3] ptp: Provide support for auxiliary clocks for PTP_SYS_OFFSET_EXTENDED

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

On Tue, Jul 01 2025 at 16:56, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2025 14:23:39 +0200 Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> > I guess we want to avoid such duplicates, but I don't see how to avoid
>> > all of them. A stable branch on top of current net-next will avoid the
>> > ptp cleanup series duplicates, but will not avoid duplicates for
>> > prereqs. Am I missing something obvious?  
>> 
>> No. I messed that up by not telling that the PTP series should be
>> applied as a seperate branch, which is merged into net-next. That way I
>> could have merged that branch back into tip and apply this pile on top.
>> 
>> Let me think about an elegant way to make this work without creating an
>> utter mess in either of the trees (or both).
>
> Sorry about that, I read the previous cover letter as the branch being
> provided for convenience, not that I _should_ pull from it. I should
> have asked..

I should have made it entirely clear. Next time :)