Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > + Doug, Matthias, who are seeing problems (or, failure to try to > recover, as predicted below) > + Amit's new email > + new maintainers > > Perhaps it's my fault for marking this RFC. But I changed the status > back to "New" in Patchwork, in case that helps: But I still see it marked as RFC. So the patch in question is: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9657277/ Changing the patchwork state to RFC means that it's dropped and out of my radar. Also, if I see "RFC" in the subject I assume that's a patch which I should not apply by default. > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 01:21:36PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: >> This reverts commit 437322ea2a36d112e20aa7282c869bf924b3a836. >> >> This above-mentioned "fix" does not actually do anything to prevent a >> race condition. It simply papers over it so that the issue doesn't >> appear. >> >> If this is a real problem, it should be explained better than the above >> commit does, and an alternative, non-racy solution should be found. >> >> For further reason to revert this: there's ot reason we can't try > > s/ot/no/ > > ...oops. > >> resetting the card when it's *actually* stuck in host-sleep mode. So >> instead, this is unnecessarily creating scenarios where we can't recover >> Wifi. >> >> Cc: Amitkumar Karwar <akarwar@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> Amit, please take a look. AIUI, your "fix" is wrong, and quite racy. If you >> still think it's needed, can you please propose an alternative? Or at least >> explain more why this is needed? Thanks. > > FWIW, I got an Acked-by from Amit when he was still at Marvell. And > another Reviewed-by from Dmitry. This still applies. Should I resend? > (I'll do that if I don't hear a response within a few days.) This patch is from 2017 so better to resend, and without RFC markings. -- https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
