[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220209083155.xma5m7tayy2atyoo@pengutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 09:31:55 +0100
From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
To: Srinivas Neeli <sneeli@...inx.com>
Cc: "wg@...ndegger.com" <wg@...ndegger.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
Michal Simek <michals@...inx.com>,
"linux-can@...r.kernel.org" <linux-can@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao <appanad@...inx.com>,
Srinivas Goud <sgoud@...inx.com>, git <git@...inx.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: xilinx_can: Add check for NAPI Poll function
On 09.02.2022 08:29:55, Srinivas Neeli wrote:
> > On 08.02.2022 21:50:53, Srinivas Neeli wrote:
> > > Add check for NAPI poll function to avoid enabling interrupts with out
> > > completing the NAPI call.
> >
> > Thanks for the patch. Does this fix a bug? If so, please add a Fixes:
> > tag that lists the patch that introduced that bug.
>
> It is not a bug. I am adding additional safety check( Validating the
> return value of "napi_complete_done" call).
Thanks for your feedback. Should this go into can or can-next?
regards,
Marc
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde |
Embedded Linux | https://www.pengutronix.de |
Vertretung West/Dortmund | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists