[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111207103529.GG4651@amit-x200.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 16:05:29 +0530
From: Amit Shah <amit.shah@...hat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Virtualization List <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, levinsasha928@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 09/12] virtio: net: Add freeze, restore handlers to
support S4
On (Wed) 07 Dec 2011 [12:28:24], Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 01:18:47AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > index 697a0fc..1378f3c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > @@ -1151,6 +1151,38 @@ static void __devexit virtnet_remove(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> > free_netdev(vi->dev);
> > }
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PM
> > +static int virtnet_freeze(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> > +{
> > + struct virtnet_info *vi = vdev->priv;
> > +
> > + netif_device_detach(vi->dev);
> > + if (netif_running(vi->dev))
> > + napi_disable(&vi->napi);
> > +
>
> Could refill_work still be running at this point?
Yes, it could. So moving the cancel_delayed_work_sync() before
disabling napi would work fine? Anything else that might similar treatment?
Amit
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists