From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B466C433E0 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 11:32:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C7C02088E for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 11:32:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=microchip.com header.i=@microchip.com header.b="bVa580UV" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2390656AbgFXLb7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jun 2020 07:31:59 -0400 Received: from esa5.microchip.iphmx.com ([216.71.150.166]:1806 "EHLO esa5.microchip.iphmx.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2388470AbgFXLb7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jun 2020 07:31:59 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=microchip.com; i=@microchip.com; q=dns/txt; s=mchp; t=1592998319; x=1624534319; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=ytChrvYAloZwmq/t2qRRQKdJIdRvD5ZigkU1TGR2Ylk=; b=bVa580UVe4P1eOQ12ADT9omVfi6UrO5iWvaOKpAx4IbEmphNp2rK5l3H BvlZJQHFqgHk4OxoNmgqDh9LMvAzlfmBDstqyp8fq+y4KJfOXe/x9/pow JzLGrUgStCHwOoLYb6Pj7N84rSRNDieSOTNPCsVRQdFn/fJpqVJ+1wFry K7kRXgNxvkjNBstCUoX1QcR8Gvo2UhPDkpf1hlHe4I0EPI19ZY7br/k0n NuilMum9892bk2HrHL94dnfh2+G7Dk+MVC2ebE7BKWOsN/QW8gSw4+Dk7 +4YlcIPOYYJGI+7nOvwCEhZhbrhJXPGhvmUcKUldw7KVr3orl8BYnNMpr A==; IronPort-SDR: Otnu5zaWQnGtJeKyFJ4oY4LrHRbzk1keJeICfFcy3n7QvBPhI2tkHpler6TjeFRsQFjTIuLjPC rkecIdjwTgPbC8cAWgWHGOXs6mw/g5SasaeFeB0YK4KvfLFJUHEGihqloZ65K7PL/lZxfIr4Fm 7bxyS1Tz1FAqbTSy9xla2EBe36cvR913P/g+auO53KwNyUsPmLK5fp5p9+7cLZTUyEh/rmkz0t pMhLUnLKC5RO9XsCiX/Gj6QjIjxUs4bdhOr9VTfq1BFJjJmRbYk6fflBU2r6/d4GLH6Kz7J1Bn sgM= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,275,1589266800"; d="scan'208";a="80727156" Received: from smtpout.microchip.com (HELO email.microchip.com) ([198.175.253.82]) by esa5.microchip.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA256; 24 Jun 2020 04:31:59 -0700 Received: from chn-vm-ex04.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.152) by chn-vm-ex04.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1979.3; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 04:31:57 -0700 Received: from localhost (10.10.115.15) by chn-vm-ex04.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 15.1.1979.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 04:31:57 -0700 Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 13:31:56 +0200 From: Horatiu Vultur To: David Miller CC: , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 0/2] bridge: mrp: Update MRP_PORT_ROLE Message-ID: <20200624113156.hsutqewk4xntmkld@soft-dev3.localdomain> References: <20200623090541.2964760-1-horatiu.vultur@microchip.com> <20200623.143821.491798381160245817.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200623.143821.491798381160245817.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org The 06/23/2020 14:38, David Miller wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > From: Horatiu Vultur > Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 11:05:39 +0200 > > > This patch series does the following: > > - fixes the enum br_mrp_port_role_type. It removes the port role none(0x2) > > because this is in conflict with the standard. The standard defines the > > interconnect port role as value 0x2. > > - adds checks regarding current defined port roles: primary(0x0) and > > secondary(0x1). > > > > v2: > > - add the validation code when setting the port role. > > Series applied, thank you. Thanks. Will these patches be applied also on net-next? Because if I start now to add support for the interconnect port, these patches are needed on net-next. Or do I need to add these patches to the patch series for the interconnect port? What is the correct way of doing this? -- /Horatiu