Hi Tobias,

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:56:47AM +0100, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:

 	} else {
-		dst->tag_ops = dsa_tag_driver_get(tag_protocol);
-		if (IS_ERR(dst->tag_ops)) {
-			if (PTR_ERR(dst->tag_ops) == -ENOPROTOOPT)
-				return -EPROBE_DEFER;
-			dev_warn(ds->dev, "No tagger for this switch\n");
-			dp->master = NULL;
-			return PTR_ERR(dst->tag_ops);
-		}
+		dst->tag_ops = tag_ops;
 	}

This will conflict with George's bug fix for 'net', am I right?
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20210322202650.45776-1-george.mccollister@gmail.com/

Would you mind resending after David merges 'net' into 'net-next'?

This process usually looks like commit d489ded1a369 ("Merge
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net"). However,
during this kernel development cycle, I have seen no merge of 'net' into
'net-next' since commit 05a59d79793d ("Merge
git://git.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net"), but that
comes directly from Linus Torvalds' v5.12-rc2.

Nonetheless, at some point (and sooner rather than later, I think),
David or Jakub should merge the two trees. I would prefer to do it this
way because the merge is going to be a bit messy otherwise, and I might
want to cherry-pick these patches to some trees and it would be nice if
the history was linear.

Thanks!