On 6 November 2020 9:34:45 PM IST, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 10:43:53 +0530 Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 04:57:08PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >> > On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 18:23:53 +0100 Loic Poulain wrote: >> > > This function can be used by client driver to determine whether >it's >> > > possible to queue new elements in a channel ring. >> > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > > Reviewed-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam ><manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > Applied. >> >> Oops. I should've mentioned this (my bad) that we should use an >immutable >> branch to take this change. Because, there are changes going to get >merged >> into the MHI tree which will introduce merge conflicts. And moreover, >we >> planned to have an immutable branch to handle a similar case with >ath11k. > >Damn, sorry. > >> Since you've applied now, what would you propose? > >Do you need mhi_queue_is_full() in other branches, or are you just >concerned about the conflicts? > Yes, I need this patch in mhi-next. >I'm assuming the concern is just about the mhi/core patch, or would >you need to refactor something in the net driver as well? Just the mhi_queue_is_full() patch. Thanks, Mani -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
