Re: [PATCH net-next] cxgb4: Allow for backward compatibility with new VPD scheme.

[David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>]

From: Vipul Pandya <vipul@chelsio.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:23:12 +0530

> 
> 
> On 11-03-2013 12:00, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Vipul Pandya <vipul@chelsio.com>
>> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:21:51 +0530
>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08-03-2013 23:14, David Miller wrote:
>>>> From: Vipul Pandya <vipul@chelsio.com>
>>>> Date: Fri,  8 Mar 2013 19:05:29 +0530
>>>>
>>>>> From: Santosh Rastapur <santosh@chelsio.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 <santosh@chelsio.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vipul Pandya <vipul@chelsio.com>
>>>>
>>>> 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.

That's why you tell me to first pull net into net-next, and you send
me a patch set for net-next which assumes the fix from 'net' is
already applied.