From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] NetXen: Driver bug fixes Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:31:52 -0400 Message-ID: <45F56458.9020403@garzik.org> References: <200703090805.l29855n5011673@dut39.unminc.com> <200703101239.16417.amitkale@netxen.com> <45F294DC.50300@garzik.org> <200703121146.31531.amitkale@netxen.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Linsys Contractor Mithlesh Thukral , netdev@vger.kernel.org, netxenproj@linsyssoft.com, rob@netxen.com To: Amit Kale Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:50623 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965864AbXCLOby (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:31:54 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200703121146.31531.amitkale@netxen.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Amit Kale wrote: > On Saturday 10 March 2007 16:52, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> Amit Kale wrote: >>> On Friday 09 March 2007 22:26, Jeff Garzik wrote: >>>> Linsys Contractor Mithlesh Thukral wrote: >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> >>>>> I will be sending updates to NetXen: 1G/10G Ethernet driver in >>>>> subsequent mails. The patches will be with respect to netdev#upstream. >>>> Are you sure you don't want some of these in #upstream-fixes, queued for >>>> 2.6.21-rc? >>> We really want them in both places. If we send them to #upstream-fixes, >>> they'll break #upstream. Should we send them against both of these >>> branches? >> Well, I can drop NetXen patches in #upstream, apply these to >> #upstream-fixes, and wait for a resend? > > Could you do that, please? (drop NetXen patches in #upstream) > > We'll resend them against #upstream-fixes. Will note. Just to be clear, I presume that you will only be resending the bug fixes against #upstream-fixes (2.6.21-rc). The multiple PCI function stuff is way too big and invasive for 2.6.21-rc, which is why I committed that to #upstream (2.6.22). Jeff