From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] cxgb4: Allow for backward compatibility with new VPD scheme. Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 07:41:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20130311.074136.1262065455365949917.davem@davemloft.net> References: <513D70F7.4090708@chelsio.com> <20130311.023009.1276623167785151916.davem@davemloft.net> <513D7F58.1080807@chelsio.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, divy@chelsio.com, dm@chelsio.com, abhishek@chelsio.com, santosh@chelsio.com To: vipul@chelsio.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:60254 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753955Ab3CKLl0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Mar 2013 07:41:26 -0400 In-Reply-To: <513D7F58.1080807@chelsio.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Vipul Pandya Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:23:12 +0530 > > > 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. 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.