Re: [PATCH net] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: remove bridge work

[Andrew Lunn]

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:39:23AM -0400, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > From: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 21:28:28 -0400
> >
> >> Hi David,
> >> 
> >> Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 <andrew@xxxxxxx>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> 
> >> 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