From: Ganapathi Bhat <gbhat@marvell.com>
To: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
CC: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
        "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
        Cathy Luo <cluo@marvell.com>, Xinming Hu <huxm@marvell.com>,
        Zhiyuan Yang <yangzy@marvell.com>,
        James Cao <jcao@marvell.com>,
        Mangesh Malusare <mmangesh@marvell.com>,
        Shrenik Shikhare <shrenik@marvell.com>
Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [2/2] mwifiex: use more_rx_task_flag to avoid USB RX
 stall
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 07:19:54 +0000
Message-ID: <25201a91958e4b408b14c4125433b305@SC-EXCH02.marvell.com> (sfid-20180129_082001_962222_648D8515)
References: <1516633497-6584-3-git-send-email-gbhat@marvell.com>
 <20180125071202.0F39560A60@smtp.codeaurora.org>
 <e7a1f375b450451da611477943d2eeb6@SC-EXCH02.marvell.com>
 <20180125183355.rpmajajr5exxcybb@ban.mtv.corp.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

Hi Brian,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ganapathi Bhat
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 12:47 PM
> To: 'Brian Norris'
> Cc: Kalle Valo; linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org; 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@chromium.org]
> > Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 12:04 AM
> > To: Ganapathi Bhat
> > Cc: Kalle Valo; linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org; 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