I'll check how we can rebase your changes against those three patches on top of my patches, our goals are same, that is to merge your changes and this patch set to ovs. I don't know what order Joe will merge them in. Obviously one patch set can't depend on another one which isn't nailed down to merge or not.
Jan, let us have a sync by lync meeting. -----Original Message----- From: Jan Scheurich [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 7:19 AM To: Joe Stringer <[email protected]>; Yang, Yi Y <[email protected]>; Jiri Benc ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Eric Garver <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v3 00/16] port Jiri Benc's L3 patchset to ovs Hi Yi, Both Joe and Jarno have indicated there are no principle problems merging our self-contained user-space patches for L3 tunneling. May I suggest that you (together with Jiri and Eric) focus on the datapath back-ports and the user-space patches on top needed to configure L3 tunnels in the net-next and OVS tree kernel module. /Jan > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Stringer [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, 07 February, 2017 18:55 > To: Yang, Yi Y <[email protected]> > Cc: Jan Scheurich <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v3 00/16] port Jiri Benc's L3 patchset > to ovs > > On 7 February 2017 at 05:28, Yang, Yi Y <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jan, I know that, but per Joe's comments, it seems he won't merge your > > patch set unless the part in kernel side is merged before them. > It can't work without these three patches. > > I have primarily expressed concern about missing kernel patch > backports due to inconsistent backporting order. If Jan's series is > decoupled and still builds OK, tests OK, passes review, etc by itself > then I'm not sure I understand the dependency on the kernel patches. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
