From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] openvswitch: Use eth_mac_addr() instead of
 duplicating it
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 23:16:38 +0000
Message-ID: <20121203231638.GA16122@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20121203221732.GA14494@casper.infradead.org>
 <CAEP_g=8+V=LN--ZkAgRHysUWwNJH1O=YDevbLH846nGZQkUpUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20121203224721.GC14494@casper.infradead.org>
 <CAEP_g=_sAOsQAXQXELDUAc3vFPgXAYbQUG6THfcsuNvXg7+M8A@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, dev@openvswitch.org
To: Jesse Gross <jesse@nicira.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:59974 "EHLO
	casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751340Ab2LCXQl (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Mon, 3 Dec 2012 18:16:41 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAEP_g=_sAOsQAXQXELDUAc3vFPgXAYbQUG6THfcsuNvXg7+M8A@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On 12/03/12 at 02:55pm, Jesse Gross wrote:
> If you send patches like this to two different trees then it will
> result in merge conflicts later.  Please just wait a few days; as you
> say, it's a trivial patch.

I CC'ed dev@openvswitch.org on both patch submissions as well so if
davem merges it you will know.

It's no the lack of response to this patch but the discontinuation
of discussion on the previous patchset without any reason that gave
me the impression of being ignored. When I feel ignored, I go
somehwere else.

Besides, it would have taken less time to just apply the patch than
to have this discussion.