Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-4386-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Message-ID: <e873f69e-e4b8-4dd0-a54a-191e9826ab56@quicinc.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 22:05:30 +0530
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] Add JSON output options to 'iw' for scan results
To: Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@quicinc.com>,
        Johannes Berg
	<johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
        Isaev Ruslan <legale.legale@gmail.com>,
        <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
References: <5c5be485dcfceb44fc731e47758d6be3.legale.legale@gmail.com>
 <12f91b008d6f2b4e6241794d2852c1c84fe6c12c.camel@sipsolutions.net>
 <7eec23f3-5e1d-4787-bba3-6b06549db091@quicinc.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Aditya Kumar Singh <quic_adisi@quicinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <7eec23f3-5e1d-4787-bba3-6b06549db091@quicinc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 3/5/24 21:25, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> On 3/5/2024 1:41 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
>> On Mon, 2024-03-04 at 23:01 +0300, Isaev Ruslan wrote:
>>> v5 changes:
>>> 	- add json print to print_ap_channel_report()
>>> 	- minor refactor open_json_object()
>>
>> Alright, yay, so mechanical submission issues out of the way, this looks
>> readable :)
> 
> 
> Did the v5 version hit the list? I don't see it, and neither does lore:
> <https://lore.kernel.org/all/5c5be485dcfceb44fc731e47758d6be3.legale.legale@gmail.com/>
> 
> I received v4 directly, not via the list, and that was addressed to
> "Undisclosed Recipients". lore also doesn't have v4:
> <https://lore.kernel.org/all/8a0ba4b33aedd96f303db7cfe966b83b.legale.legale@gmail.com/>
> 
> So I don't think the mechanical submission issues are out of the way
> unless the list rejected the patch due to size, which seems unlikely.
> 

Yes it did -
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/patch/d9739fa6d3dd085587c4f413087dfd6c.legale.legale@gmail.com/

Looks like the first reply started a separate thread. Probably 
--in-reply-to was missed.