From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] igb: use build_skb() Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 20:21:55 +0200 Message-ID: <1344277315.26674.54.camel@edumazet-glaptop> References: <1343922692.9299.231.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <50200066.6060905@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jeff Kirsher , netdev To: Alexander Duyck Return-path: Received: from mail-bk0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:56794 "EHLO mail-bk0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932347Ab2HFSWA (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:22:00 -0400 Received: by mail-bk0-f46.google.com with SMTP id j10so1147352bkw.19 for ; Mon, 06 Aug 2012 11:21:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <50200066.6060905@intel.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 10:35 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote: > I was planning to move igb over to an ixgbe style receive path at some > point anyway. Since it seems like this is now a higher priority I > figured I would try to get the patches for it implemented in the next > week or so. Would there be any issue with us rejecting this patch and > instead switching igb over to the ixgbe style path? It seems I missed this part. I use igb on my dev machine, not on prod machines, so if you are moving igb to ixgbe, I can certainly can maintain my patch in my tree, while you make your changes.