Hi Brian, > -----Original Message----- > From: Ganapathi Bhat > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 12:47 PM > To: 'Brian Norris' > Cc: Kalle Valo; linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Cathy Luo; Xinming Hu; > Zhiyuan Yang; James Cao; Mangesh Malusare; Shrenik Shikhare > Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [2/2] mwifiex: use more_rx_task_flag to avoid USB RX > stall > > Hi Brian, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Brian Norris [mailto:briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 12:04 AM > > To: Ganapathi Bhat > > Cc: Kalle Valo; linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Cathy Luo; Xinming Hu; > > Zhiyuan Yang; James Cao; Mangesh Malusare; Shrenik Shikhare > > Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [2/2] mwifiex: use more_rx_task_flag to avoid > > USB RX stall > > > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 09:59:04AM +0000, Ganapathi Bhat wrote: > > > > I can't find any commit with id c7dbdcb2a4e1, is it correct? > > > Correct. Actually the commit id c7dbdcb2a4e1 is the PATCH [1/2] sent > > > in this > > series. > > > > What? Why would you introduce a bug and only fix it in the next patch? > With the first patch the original issue took considerably longer time to > recreate. Also it followed a different path to get recreated(shared in commit > message). > > Does that mean you should just combine the two? > Let us know if that is fine to merge them. We can modify the commit > message accordingly. > > Or reverse the order, if patch 2 doesn't cause problems on its own? > Patch 2 has a dependency on patch 1. One correction. There is no commit dependency between patch 1 and 2(they can be applied in any order). But the result would be same. We need both fixes. Let us know if we can combine them. > > > > Brian > > Regards, > Ganapathi Regards, Ganapathi
