On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:39:23AM -0400, Vivien Didelot wrote: > Hi David, > > David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> writes: > > > From: Vivien Didelot <vivien.dide...@savoirfairelinux.com> > > Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 21:28:28 -0400 > > > >> Hi David, > >> > >> Vivien Didelot <vivien.dide...@savoirfairelinux.com> 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 <and...@lunn.ch> > >>> Signed-off-by: Vivien Didelot <vivien.dide...@savoirfairelinux.com> > >> > >> 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? > > > > I applied this to net-next, thanks. > > Do we want to send this fix to -net as well?
Hi Vivien I don't see this bug as being highly critical that it needs to be fixed immediately. I would suggest we wait until -rc1 is out, and then produce a backport version. Given the changes we have made to that driver, there is little chance the existing fix will cherry-pick backwards. Andrew