lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 10:09:51 -0700 From: "Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com> To: James Chapman <jchapman@...alix.com> CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org, e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] [PATCH net-2.6.24] e100: fix driver init lockup on e100_up() James Chapman wrote: > Recent NAPI changes require that napi_enable() is always matched with > a napi_disable(). This patch makes sure that this invariant holds for > e100. It also moves the netif_napi_add() call until after private > pointers have been intialized, though this might only be significant > for cases where netpoll is being used. > > Signed-off-by: James Chapman <jchapman@...alix.com> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/e100.c b/drivers/net/e100.c > index e25f5ec..48996a4 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/e100.c > +++ b/drivers/net/e100.c > @@ -2575,11 +2575,12 @@ static int __devinit e100_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, > strncpy(netdev->name, pci_name(pdev), sizeof(netdev->name) - 1); > > nic = netdev_priv(netdev); > - netif_napi_add(netdev, &nic->napi, e100_poll, E100_NAPI_WEIGHT); > nic->netdev = netdev; > nic->pdev = pdev; > nic->msg_enable = (1 << debug) - 1; > pci_set_drvdata(pdev, netdev); > + netif_napi_add(netdev, &nic->napi, e100_poll, E100_NAPI_WEIGHT); > + napi_disable(&nic->napi); Just wondering, could we even reverse this order? IOW disable NAPI first, then add it ? Otherwise this sounds OK to me. Auke - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists