On Sat, 2011-03-12 at 10:59 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 13:01:10 +0100
>
> > Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 02:09:18AM CET, robert.w.love@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 01:55 -0800, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >>> Or perhaps this should be applied to net-next?
> >>>
> >>I think this should go through scsi-misc as all the other
> >>libfc/libfcoe/fcoe patches do.
> >>
> >>> Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 07:05:35AM CET, jpirko@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>> >Check for bonding master and refuse to use that.
> >>> >
> >>> >Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> >---
> >>> > drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c | 4 +---
> >>> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>> >
> >>> >diff --git a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c
> >>> >index 9f9600b..3becc6a 100644
> >>> >--- a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c
> >>> >+++ b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c
> >>> >@@ -285,9 +285,7 @@ static int fcoe_interface_setup(struct fcoe_interface *fcoe,
> >>> > }
> >>> >
> >>> > /* Do not support for bonding device */
> >>> >- if ((netdev->priv_flags & IFF_MASTER_ALB) ||
> >>> >- (netdev->priv_flags & IFF_SLAVE_INACTIVE) ||
> >>> >- (netdev->priv_flags & IFF_MASTER_8023AD)) {
> >>> >+ if (netdev->priv_flags & IFF_BONDING && netdev->flags & IFF_MASTER) {
> >>> > FCOE_NETDEV_DBG(netdev, "Bonded interfaces not supported\n");
> >>> > return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >>> > }
> >>> >--
> >>> >1.7.3.4
> >>> >
> >>
> >>James, feel free to pick up this patch. I don't have anything in my fcoe
> >>tree right now that it would conflict with. I'll also put it in my tree
> >>and resend if you don't put it into scsi-misc directly.
> >
> > What's the status of this? Maybe this should rather go thru net-next
>
> Sure, I can take this. I'll look at it later.
Hi Dave,
I'd rather have this patch go through scsi-misc. Most, if not all,
libfc, libfcoe and fcoe patches have taken this path. The way it has
been working is that I have been collecting fcoe patches and re-posting
them to scsi-misc after I have reviewed them and done some basic
testing.
Taking a patch like this through net{-next} could cause a merge
problem at Linus' level if a later patch makes it though the normal
process and conflicts. This is what I want to avoid.
This patch, although appreciated, isn't critical. I have collected it
into my tree and will re-post it to scsi-misc. I see no reason to treat
this patch differently from other patches.
Ultimately I just want things to go smoothly, so I'll leave it up to
James and you to figure out what to do.
Thanks, //Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
