[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5032653A.9090403@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 09:26:34 -0700
From: David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>
To: Marina Makienko <makienko@...ras.ru>
CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
"Roy.Li" <rongqing.li@...driver.com>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ldv-project@...ras.ru
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: octeon: Add prevent NAPI from scheduling
On 08/20/2012 03:41 AM, Marina Makienko wrote:
> Code inspection shows that this can
> only be triggered by calling napi_enable() without
> napi_disable().
>
> Found by Linux Driver Verification project (linuxtesting.org).
>
> Signed-off-by: Marina Makienko <makienko@...ras.ru>
> ---
> drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-rx.c | 1 +
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-rx.c b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-rx.c
> index 34afc16..db81613 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-rx.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-rx.c
> @@ -560,4 +560,5 @@ void cvm_oct_rx_shutdown(void)
> /* Shutdown all of the NAPIs */
> for_each_possible_cpu(i)
> netif_napi_del(&cvm_oct_napi[i].napi);
> + napi_disable(&cvm_oct_napi[i].napi);
Does the order of netif_napi_del() and napi_disable() matter? If so,
does this patch have the correct ordering?
I don't really want to apply the patch until we know the answer to these
two questions.
David Daney
--
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