<Ajay.Kathat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hi David,
>
> On 24/02/21 9:17 pm, David Mosberger-Tang wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>
>> Ajay,
>>
>> On Wed, 2021-02-24 at 13:35 +0000, Ajay.Kathat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>
>>> One more observation.
>>> I am not clear if the below block is really needed. Have you faced any
>>> issue here and did the below logic of skipping data helped to come out
>>> of it. Also checking the limit of 16384(2*8KB) byte looks odd when the
>>> max limit for data packet is around 8KB. Am I missing something here.
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> + {
>>>> + u8 byte;
>>>> + int i;
>>>> +
>>>> + for (i = 0; i < 16384; ++i) {
>>>> + byte = 0;
>>>> + wilc_spi_rx(wilc, &byte, 1);
>>>> + if (!byte)
>>>> + break;
>>>> + }
>>>> + }
>>
>> Ouch, that's definitely not supposed to be there! It's left-over debug
>> code from when I was tracking down the power-save issue. Not sure how
>> I missed that. Thanks for catching it and being so gentle about it!
>>
>> How do I fix this best? Do I resend the entire patch series or is it
>> OK to create a V2 of just this last patch?
>>
>
> It's better to resubmit the complete patch series v2, as it would be
> convenient for Kalle to apply the patches in order.
Correct. This is also documented in the wiki, see the link below.
--
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
