On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 12:58:04AM +0000, Patrick Uiterwijk wrote:

Hi Vivien,

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Vivien Didelot
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi Andrew, Patrick,

Andrew Lunn [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:23:06PM -0400, Vivien Didelot wrote:

quoted

Hi Patrick,

Two comments below.

Patrick Uiterwijk [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

+static int mv88e6xxx_power_on_serdes(struct dsa_switch *ds)

Since this function assumes the SMI lock is already held, its name
should be prefixed with _ by convention (_mv88e6xxx_power_on_serdes).

We decided to drop at, since nearly everything would end up with a _
prefix. The assert_smi_lock() should find any missing locks, and
lockdep/deadlocks will make it clear when the lock is taken twice.

OK, I didn't know that. This makes sense. There is no need to respin a
v3 only for my previous &= comment then.

Does that mean the merger will fix this up?
Or that I'll roll a v3 when I get a reviewed-by for the second patch?

Hi Patrick

Role a v3, and you can add

Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>

as well as Viviens for patch #1.

     Andrew