From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 net-next-2.6] r6040: fix multicast operations Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 14:35:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20110223.143558.102556959.davem@davemloft.net> References: <201102231532.34849.florian@openwrt.org> <20110223.142254.59671988.davem@davemloft.net> <201102232332.40712.florian@openwrt.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: florian@openwrt.org Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:58306 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754401Ab1BWWfW (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Feb 2011 17:35:22 -0500 In-Reply-To: <201102232332.40712.florian@openwrt.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Florian Fainelli Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 23:32:40 +0100 > It is appropriate for kernel versions including e1d44477 (net: convert > multiple drivers to use netdev_for_each_mc_addr). The patch was generated from > a net-next-2.6 tree, thus the mention in the subject, which was certainly > misleading, sorry about that. There is no disconnect between those two things, what tree a patch applies cleanly against and what tree it is meant to be applied to. They are always equal. There is therefore no confusion, and it was not misleading.