[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240828155548.473b3cd1@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 15:55:48 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: David Thompson <davthompson@...dia.com>
Cc: Benjamin Poirier <benjamin.poirier@...il.com>, "davem@...emloft.net"
<davem@...emloft.net>, "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com" <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
"u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de" <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, Asmaa
Mnebhi <asmaa@...dia.com>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org"
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v1] mlxbf_gige: disable port during stop()
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 21:37:06 +0000 David Thompson wrote:
> Hello Jakub and Benjamin, thanks for your input.
>
> I will post a v2 adding information about the "mb()" call.
Perhaps this information you're adding will shed more light..
> Given the above information, does my mlxbf_gige driver patch still need to
> invoke "synchronize_irq()" in the stop() method? The "mlxbf_gige_free_irq()"
> call within the stop() method invokes "free_irq()" for each of the driver's IRQs, so
> sounds like this "synchronize_irq()" is implicitly being invoked?
I was talking about the point in which you add the mb().
IDK what you're trying to protect from but it's after what looks like
disabling IRQ, and there's not free_irq() in that spot.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists