[PATCH v2 0/2] cxgb3/cxgb3i: added support of private MAC address and provisioning packet handler for iSCSI

[PATCH v2 0/2] cxgb3/cxgb3i: added support of private MAC address and provisioning packet handler for iSCSI

[kxie-ut6Up61K2wZBDgjK7y7TUQ]

From: Karen Xie <kxie-ut6Up61K2wZBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>

The two patches added support of private MAC address, which is derived from
the network (i.e., public) MAC address, and provisioning packet handler for
iSCSI traffic only.

Best regards,
Karen

Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] cxgb3/cxgb3i: added support of private MAC address and provisioning packet handler for iSCSI

[David Miller]

From: kxie@chelsio.com
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:25:36 -0700

> From: Karen Xie <kxie@chelsio.com>
> 
> The two patches added support of private MAC address, which is derived from
> the network (i.e., public) MAC address, and provisioning packet handler for
> iSCSI traffic only.

I think I'm going to ask you to resubmit the drivers/net patch
after the necessary drivers/scsi changes get merged by the scsi
folks.

Thank you.

RE: [PATCH v2 0/2] cxgb3/cxgb3i: added support of private MAC address and provisioning packet handler for iSCSI

[Karen Xie]

Hmm, I am wondering how could this merge activity to be coordinated? If
only the driver/scsi change is merged, then it won't compile either,
since it requires the driver/net change.

Is it possible to merge both patches to the scsi or net tree?

Thanks,
Karen

-----Original Message-----
From: David Miller [mailto:davem@davemloft.net] 
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 3:25 PM
To: Karen Xie
Cc: michaelc@cs.wisc.edu; James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com; Steve
Wise; Divy Le Ray; Rakesh Ranjan; linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org;
open-iscsi@googlegroups.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] cxgb3/cxgb3i: added support of private MAC
address and provisioning packet handler for iSCSI

From: kxie@chelsio.com
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:25:36 -0700

> From: Karen Xie <kxie@chelsio.com>
> 
> The two patches added support of private MAC address, which is derived
from
> the network (i.e., public) MAC address, and provisioning packet
handler for
> iSCSI traffic only.

I think I'm going to ask you to resubmit the drivers/net patch
after the necessary drivers/scsi changes get merged by the scsi
folks.

Thank you.

Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] cxgb3/cxgb3i: added support of private MAC address and provisioning packet handler for iSCSI

[David Miller]

From: "Karen Xie" <kxie@chelsio.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:34:22 -0700

> Hmm, I am wondering how could this merge activity to be coordinated? If
> only the driver/scsi change is merged, then it won't compile either,
> since it requires the driver/net change.

That's rediculious, frankly.

Since they are two seperate changes you are knowingly creating
a bisection point that will not work.  That's wrong.

You need to split up the changes so that each and every one of them
are independant and the tree can be checked out at either of them and
everything can be expected to work.

RE: [PATCH v2 0/2] cxgb3/cxgb3i: added support of private MAC address and provisioning packet handler for iSCSI

[Karen Xie]

Thanks, understood.

We are submitting a new version that would be isolated to changes to the
net driver only and would not affect scsi driver.

Thanks a lot.
Karen

-----Original Message-----
From: David Miller [mailto:davem@davemloft.net] 
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 12:17 AM
To: Karen Xie
Cc: michaelc@cs.wisc.edu; James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com; Steve
Wise; Divy Le Ray; Rakesh Ranjan; linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org;
open-iscsi@googlegroups.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] cxgb3/cxgb3i: added support of private MAC
address and provisioning packet handler for iSCSI

From: "Karen Xie" <kxie@chelsio.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:34:22 -0700

> Hmm, I am wondering how could this merge activity to be coordinated?
If
> only the driver/scsi change is merged, then it won't compile either,
> since it requires the driver/net change.

That's rediculious, frankly.

Since they are two seperate changes you are knowingly creating
a bisection point that will not work.  That's wrong.

You need to split up the changes so that each and every one of them
are independant and the tree can be checked out at either of them and
everything can be expected to work.