Re: [PATCH] ip_tunnel: Ops registration for secondary encap (fou, gue)

[David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>]

From: Tom Herbert <therbert@google.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 12:07:19 -0800

> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:03 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>> From: Tom Herbert <therbert@google.com>
>> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 11:54:09 -0800
>>
>>> Instead of calling fou and gue functions directly from ip_tunnel
>>> use ops for these that were previously registered. This patch adds the
>>> logic to add and remove encapsulation operations for ip_tunnel,
>>> and modified fou (and gue) to register with ip_tunnels.
>>>
>>> This patch also addresses a circular dependency between ip_tunnel
>>> and fou that was causing link errors when CONFIG_NET_IP_TUNNEL=y
>>> and CONFIG_NET_FOU=m. References to fou an gue have been removed from
>>> ip_tunnel.c
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tom Herbert <therbert@google.com>
>>
>> Applied, please in the future be explicit about the target tree by
>> saying "[PATCH net-next]" or similar in your Subj.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time I've had to ask this of
>> you. :-/
>>
> I was unsure which branch to target since the bug was reported in
> linux-next. Is next-next appropriate in this case?

Tom, this code doesn't even exist in the 'net' tree, how could it
possibly apply to anything other than 'net-next'?