From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steffen Klassert Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec 0/3] vti/vti6: minor tweaks + one fix Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:19:13 +0200 Message-ID: <20140630091913.GO32371@secunet.com> References: <1399671822-12842-1-git-send-email-minipli@googlemail.com> <20140513084114.GZ32371@secunet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: Herbert Xu , "David S. Miller" , To: Mathias Krause Return-path: Received: from a.mx.secunet.com ([195.81.216.161]:58483 "EHLO a.mx.secunet.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751514AbaF3JTU (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2014 05:19:20 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 10:38:32PM +0200, Mathias Krause wrote: > On 13 May 2014 10:41, Steffen Klassert wrote: > > On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 11:43:39PM +0200, Mathias Krause wrote: > >> Hi Steffen, > >> > >> this series addresses a few issues related to VTI. The first patch fixes > >> a bug in the vti6 module calling unregister_pernet_device() twice in the > >> error path. That's probably material for ipsec.git. > >> The second patch simplifies the error handling path in module init/fini > >> of vti6. The third patch does the same for vti. Those two are probably > >> material for ipsec-next.git as we're at -rc5 already. But I leave that > >> decision to you. > > > > Right, patches two and three should go to ipsec-next. But the second > > patch does not apply without the first patch. Please send separate > > patchsets for ipsec and ipsec-next in future. > > Patch 2 depends on patch 1 because it's a series ;) I explicitly > didn't want to create different patches for ipsec-next because I > wanted to avoid the merge conflicts on your side when ipsec-next would > rebase to/merge a tree which would contain patch 1. > One way to solve it would be to merge ipsec/master into > ipsec-next/master prior to applying patches 2 and 3 -- just as Dave > does with net-next from time to time, i.e. merging net/master. Another > way would be to wait until Dave has merged ipsec/master into > net/master and after that, has merged net/master into net-next. This > way you can merge net-next into ipsec-next and after that apply > patches 2 and 3 without conflicts. Your choice. You know the > interdependencies between these trees better than me. But the first > solution sounds simpler to me. ;) > I've applied the remaining two patches to ipsec-next now, thanks!