On 7/7/10 11:37 AM, Robert Love wrote:
> 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.
It slipped my mind. I'll take care of it.
Joe
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
