wireless, wavelan: spin off by 1

spin can reach -1 after the loop, so 0 is still success.

---

index de717f8..1565a0a 100644
@@ -838,9 +838,8 @@ wv_82593_cmd(struct net_device *	dev,
     }
   while(((status & SR3_EXEC_STATE_MASK) != SR3_EXEC_IDLE) && (spin-- > 0));
 
-  /* If the interrupt hasn't be posted */
-  if(spin <= 0)
-    {
+  /* If the interrupt hasn't been posted */
+  if (spin < 0) {
 #ifdef DEBUG_INTERRUPT_ERROR
       printk(KERN_INFO "wv_82593_cmd: %s timeout (previous command), status 0x%02x\n",
 	     str, status);

You are probably technically right, but it does not matter in
practice. The chip should answer way faster than this timeout, and we would loose only 0.1% of the overall timeout value. If the chip answer was that close to the timeout, because of variation, we would fail half the time and would need a bigger timeout anyway.
A better way would be to not test spin, but to test the status
register itself. That way, it's less ambiguous.
Anyway, such low level code is tricky, and I personally would
not want any change without thourough testing with the hardware. We know the curent code work, and I don't have time to test, so I would vote to not change the code.

Regards,

Jean