Larry Finger [off-list ref] writes:

On 02/06/2017 06:45 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:

quoted

Larry Finger [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

From: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>

There is a potential race condition when the control byte of a CAM
entry is written first. Write in reverse order to correct the condition.

Signed-off-by: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>
Signed-off-by: shaofu <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Larry Finger <redacted>
---
V2 - no changes
V3 - no changes

I missed in my reply to v2 that you had already sent v3 from this
patchset. Strange that I don't see this v3 patchset either in patchwork,
only v1.

Try submitting v4 in case it was just a temporary glitch in patchwork.
But if that doesn't help I'll apply these manually.

I have no idea why my patches are not getting handled by patchwork,
but V4 is not there either.

Yeah, that's odd. I do see your patches on the mailing list so I guess
something in this set is breaking patchwork's email parser. The only
notable difference I saw that in our patches the tags were in this
format:

[PATCH 01/11 V4]

But normally we use something like this:

[PATCH V4 01/11]

I don't know if that would cause patchwork to fail and I don't really
have time to investigate it right now. I'll just apply V4 manually now
and let's hope that the problem doesn't reappear.

-- 
Kalle Valo