From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kalle Valo Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:15:57 +0300 Subject: [ath9k-devel] [PATCH 2/2] ath10k: refactor scan locking In-Reply-To: <5174F0D8.3060602@tieto.com> (Michal Kazior's message of "Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:12:08 +0200") References: <1366273633-2926-1-git-send-email-michal.kazior@tieto.com> <1366273633-2926-3-git-send-email-michal.kazior@tieto.com> <87wqrvkmwm.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> <5174F0D8.3060602@tieto.com> Message-ID: <87k3nvkmki.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org Michal Kazior writes: > On 22/04/13 10:08, Kalle Valo wrote: >> Michal Kazior writes: >> >>> Since we have data_lock it is no longer necessary >>> to have scan.lock. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Michal Kazior >>> --- >> >> [...] >> >>> ret = ath10k_wmi_stop_scan(ar, &arg); >>> if (ret) >>> ath10k_warn("%s: ath10k_wmi_stop_scan failed (%d)\n", __func__, ret); >>> >>> + ath10k_wmi_flush_tx(ar); >> >> Is this by accident? > > Oh. I noticed we were missing it. Must've mixed it into the patch. > Should I resend the patches split? Yes, please split patch 2. That makes it easier to bisect etc. And please note that I have already applied patch 1. But please wait an hour or two so that I have gone through my patch backlog. Less conflicts that way. -- Kalle Valo