On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 16:45 -0700, Bhanu Gollapudi wrote: > On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 16:26 -0700, Robert Love wrote: > > I went through my patchwork queue and picked out the patches that didn't > > seem to be under debate. Here's the summary: > > > > applied to fcoe-next: > > libfcoe: FIP link keep-alive should continue while ... > > libfcoe: Avoid hang when receiving non-critical descriptors > > libfc: Retry a rejected PRLI request > > libfc: Honor LS_ACC response codes for PRLI > > fcoe: clean up TBD comments in FCoE prototype header > > Thanks Robert. > > > > pending resolution: > > libfcoe: Handle duplicate critical descriptors > > send solicitation after 2.5 * fka instead of 3 * fka > > libfc: Drop all LOGOs received while processing previous LOGO > > libfc: Do not reject unsolicited PRLO > > I'm trying to re-work these patches, and will submit them once I'm done > with the testing. > > But for "send solicitation after 2.5 * fka instead of 3 * fka" patch, if > Joe doesnt have objections, we can submit it as is. > > > > > I made Joe's suggested changes for indention on patch > > "libfc: Honor LS_ACC response codes for PRLI" but my general testing may > > not have exercised those paths. Someone might want to take a look at it > > to make sure I didn't introduce an issue; it seemed pretty > > straight-forward. > > I can take a look if you can post the patch.
It is one of the patches that I applied to fcoe-next, here's a link to it in gitweb: http://www.open-fcoe.org/openfc/gitweb/?p=openfc/fcoe-next.git;a=commitdiff;h=5a26fa1636266c6cd8f3e23af067ce6c665b5162;hp=4123bc55f48104d7f2af92082b7ca5fa190d5513 _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
