[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <465EE1A7.6050901@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 07:54:31 -0700
From: "Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC: Doug Chapman <doug.chapman@...com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: REGRESSION: panic on e1000 driver
Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 09:51:14PM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
>> this has been an age-old confusion that I never grasped either, so I
>> perfectly understand why you added the explicit e1000_disable_irq call in
>> the other patch (and think thats a great idea). But really, there should be
>> a way for a driver to tell the stack that it should really keep it's hands
>> off :)
>
> Well yes, you can get the stack to keep away by not registering your
> device :)
*blunt*
so how about calling netif_poll_disable() before we register the net_device?
>> BTW e1000 currently triggers a single irq manually in the watchdog as link
>> goes up, so that might be the one that is giving problems now. In any case
>> I can't reproduce any of it - perhaps my hardware is too fast. Time to whip
>> out the pIII :o
>
> Hmm, if it's triggered by the watchdog then that means the watchdog has
> been scheduled. However, it seems that the only way to schedule it is
> through an interrupt?
well no, if we make the watchdog (this is something I've already implemented
locally and -mm has it for instance) run as delayed work we can just schedule a
watchdog run instead of firing an interrupt.
I'm just not sure that would relieve the situation
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