On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 10:59 -0700, Joe Eykholt wrote: > On 7/7/10 10:49 AM, Robert Love wrote: > > On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 10:48 -0700, Joe Eykholt wrote: <snip> > >> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_rport.c b/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_rport.c > >> index c06d63e..1234931 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_rport.c > >> +++ b/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_rport.c > >> @@ -747,13 +747,11 @@ static void fc_rport_recv_flogi_req(struct fc_lport > >> *lport, > >> struct fc_rport_priv *rdata; > >> struct fc_frame *fp = rx_fp; > >> struct fc_exch *ep; > >> - struct fc_frame_header *fh; > >> struct fc_seq_els_data rjt_data; > >> u32 sid, f_ctl; > >> > >> rjt_data.fp = NULL; > >> - fh = fc_frame_header_get(fp); > >> - sid = ntoh24(fh->fh_s_id); > >> + sid = fc_frame_sid(fp); > >> > >> FC_RPORT_ID_DBG(lport, sid, "Received FLOGI request\n"); > > > > Hey Joe, > > > > These patches don't apply to fcoe-next. My guess is that they only > > apply on top of your VN2VN patches. Do you want to add them to that > > series or update this series? > > Hi Robert, > > I'm sure you're right, the two series need to be applied in order. Isn't > that OK? > > I submitted them in that order, but they are for different things, > so I don't thing the should be part of the same series. > Should I wait for one series to be applied before submitting the next one?
No, it's fine I can take care of it. I didn't realize they were dependent and that you knew they were dependent. Were you going to fix the one last thing with the VN2VN series? I don't have any other comments. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
