On 11/02/2015 04:41 PM, Vivien Didelot wrote: > Hi Neil, > > Nice cleanup. I'll just be a bit picky here, so you may not consider my > comment for this patchset, but maybe for the future ones. Unless I'm > mistaken, there is no reason to group all these patches together. > > The first 4 patches are independent fixes, and thus could have been sent > separately to netdev -net. > > Then the last 2 ones could have been squashed together, because I don't > see a real value to seperate them since you duplicate some defines, e.g. > REG_PORT. And this patch would be a candidate for netdev -net-next. > > Thanks, > -v > Hi Vivien,
I understand your point of view, and it really makes sense. But the first patch has a dependency on the DSA cleanup patchset, so if I follow your point, I should submit 3 patchsets with a single patchset for the poll_link complete removal. But the two other patchsets will have a strong dependency on the poll_link removal... This question is on which version of mv88e6060 and dsa should I base the cleanup patchset ? before of after the poll_link removal ? For the fixes, they are not critical at all, net-next would be enough. Any advice is welcome at this point.... Thanks ! Neil -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
