From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/8] Open-FCoE fixes for 2.6.30 RC Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 20:59:44 +0000 Message-ID: <1243630784.2919.57.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090506175206.26695.19457.stgit@fritz> <273D38FBE7C6FE46A1689FCD014A0B8B55417A17@azsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:51598 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751254AbZE2U7n (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 May 2009 16:59:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: <273D38FBE7C6FE46A1689FCD014A0B8B55417A17@azsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: "Love, Robert W" Cc: "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 15:22 -0700, Love, Robert W wrote: > Robert Love wrote: > > The following series implements general fixes to libfc, libfcoe and > > fcoe. > > > > Note: One patch adds the FIP ehtertype to if_ether.h. As discussed on > > netdev, this change was pre-acked and it was requested that the > > change go through > > the SCSI tree. > > > James, aside of the two patches that weren't appropriate for -rc will > the other 6 in this set be pushed upstream for -rc? I sort of lost track of which the other 6 were. If I look at the patches, the bug fixes seem to be: 1-4 and 7. Then for non bug fixes: 5 is a lock optimisation, 6 is a watchdog optimisation and 8 is moving header contents ... and can all wait for the merge window. Is that about right? James