From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vivien Didelot Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: remove bridge work Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 21:28:28 -0400 Message-ID: <8737plig1v.fsf@ketchup.mtl.sfl> References: <1463186303-3139-1-git-send-email-vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@savoirfairelinux.com, "David S. Miller" , Andrew Lunn , Florian Fainelli , Jiri Pirko To: netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1463186303-3139-1-git-send-email-vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Hi David, Vivien Didelot writes: > Now that the bridge code defers the switchdev port state setting, there > is no need to defer the port STP state change within the mv88e6xxx code. > Thus get rid of the driver's bridge work code. > > This also fixes a race condition where the DSA layer assumes that the > bridge code already set the unbridged port's STP state to Disabled > before restoring the Forwarding state. > > As a consequence, this also fixes the FDB flush for the unbridged port > which now correctly occurs during the Forwarding to Disabled transition. > > Fixes: 0bc05d585d38 ("switchdev: allow caller to explicitly request attr_set as deferred") > Reported-by: Andrew Lunn > Signed-off-by: Vivien Didelot This patch doesn't apply to -net, only applies to net-next... How should I handle that, do I resend a patch for net-next with the good subject prefix, and a v2 for -net? Sorry for the noise, Vivien