Hi Brian, > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Norris [mailto:briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 3:38 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 > > Hi, > > On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 11:19 PM, Ganapathi Bhat <gbhat@xxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> From: Ganapathi Bhat > >> > From: Brian Norris [mailto:briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 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. > > I haven't closely looked at patch 2 yet. My only statement was that it makes > no sense to have 2 commits, with the second one labeled as "Fixing" the first > one. From your descriptions, it sounds like patch 2 should actually come first, Ok. I understand. I will reorder them and send v3(along with spinlock change). > but I'm not really sure. I only looked far enough to say that I didn't like patch > 1 as-is :) > > Brian Regards, Ganapathi
