On Sat, 2011-11-12 at 10:40 +0100, patrick kelle wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Love, Robert W <robert.w.l...@intel.com> > wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 15:31 +0100, Patrick Kelle wrote: > >> skb_linearize() calls skb_is_nonlinear(), which was already checked > >> in this case. Hence no need for a second skb_is_nonlinear() check, > >> so call __skb_linearize() directly. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Patrick Kelle <patrick.kell...@gmail.com> > >> --- > >> drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c | 2 +- > >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c > >> index cefbe44..3720c65 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c > >> +++ b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c > >> @@ -1660,7 +1660,7 @@ static void fcoe_recv_frame(struct sk_buff *skb) > >> > >> port = lport_priv(lport); > >> if (skb_is_nonlinear(skb)) > >> - skb_linearize(skb); /* not ideal */ > >> + __skb_linearize(skb); /* not ideal */ > > > > Shouldn't we just call skb_linearize unconditionally and remove the > > skb_is_nonlinear check from fcoe.c since it's already being done for us? > > > > //Rob > > > > Yes ok that would be better I guess. Will you just apply the changes > or do I need to resubmit?
I just mailed a patch that makes this change. I'm not sure how much you care about authorship. It was your idea, so I don't want to steal your thunder. If you ack this patch I'll add an Acked-by line for you. If you want to resend your own version of this patch then got for it, because then I can put your Signed-off line on it. I don't think I can add your Signed-off line to this patch though since I authored the whole thing. I'll give you a few days to Ack if you'd like or resend a patch, if I don't hear back from you by the weekend I'll just move this patch forward as it is. Thanks, //Rob _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@open-fcoe.org https://lists.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
