From: Marcel Holtmann <mar...@holtmann.org> Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 16:17:41 -0700
>> My proposal would be that the IPv6 patches go via net-next to reduce >> merge conflicts with maybe upcoming changes. If they are split up, they >> seem very much self contained and easy to review. The rest seems to be >> also very much self contained and can go in via bluetooth-next, then. >> What do you think? > > I am actually fine with having this all go via net-next. We only > have driver patches pending in bluetooth-next for the next merge > window. Which means I can just pull net-next back into > bluetooth-next at any time. Ok, just resubmit the series explicitly targetting net-next then. Thanks.
