[PATCH 1/3] net: dsa: Use true instead of 1 in the set_promisc() call

[Ramon Fried]

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 10:29 PM Vladimir Oltean
<vladimir.oltean at nxp.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 09:41:02PM +0300, Ramon Fried wrote:
> > Bin, patches don't apply cleanly.  can you rebase ?
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 7:53 AM Ramon Fried <rfried.dev at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 5:19 AM Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 2:26 AM Ramon Fried <rfried.dev at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 4:32 PM Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean at nxp.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 01:50:44PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
> > > > > > > set_promisc() call accepts the parameter of a bool type. Make it
> > > > > > > clear by using true instead of 1.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  net/dsa-uclass.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/net/dsa-uclass.c b/net/dsa-uclass.c
> > > > > > > index 694664d81b..dcefec03f4 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/net/dsa-uclass.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/net/dsa-uclass.c
> > > > > > > @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static int dsa_port_probe(struct udevice *pdev)
> > > > > > >               struct eth_ops *eth_ops = eth_get_ops(master);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >               if (eth_ops->set_promisc)
> > > > > > > -                     eth_ops->set_promisc(master, 1);
> > > > > > > +                     eth_ops->set_promisc(master, true);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >               return 0;
> > > > > > >       }
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > 2.25.1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean at nxp.com>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Ramon Fried <rfried.dev at gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > Ping for apply?
> > > I'll get to the patches today.
> > > thanks for waking me up :)
>
> Why don't you apply patches immediately after reviewing them?
It wouldn't make a difference. you were all working on the same file
in code, If I would have applied bin's patches before yours, then you
would need to rebase.
simple as that. Also the time when I'm applying and when I'm reviewing
is also meaningless because this problem would occur anyway.