[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46D3055F.5060201@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 10:09:51 -0700
From: "Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>
To: James Chapman <jchapman@...alix.com>
CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org, e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] [PATCH net-2.6.24] e100: fix driver init lockup
on e100_up()
James Chapman wrote:
> Recent NAPI changes require that napi_enable() is always matched with
> a napi_disable(). This patch makes sure that this invariant holds for
> e100. It also moves the netif_napi_add() call until after private
> pointers have been intialized, though this might only be significant
> for cases where netpoll is being used.
>
> Signed-off-by: James Chapman <jchapman@...alix.com>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/e100.c b/drivers/net/e100.c
> index e25f5ec..48996a4 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/e100.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/e100.c
> @@ -2575,11 +2575,12 @@ static int __devinit e100_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> strncpy(netdev->name, pci_name(pdev), sizeof(netdev->name) - 1);
>
> nic = netdev_priv(netdev);
> - netif_napi_add(netdev, &nic->napi, e100_poll, E100_NAPI_WEIGHT);
> nic->netdev = netdev;
> nic->pdev = pdev;
> nic->msg_enable = (1 << debug) - 1;
> pci_set_drvdata(pdev, netdev);
> + netif_napi_add(netdev, &nic->napi, e100_poll, E100_NAPI_WEIGHT);
> + napi_disable(&nic->napi);
Just wondering, could we even reverse this order? IOW disable NAPI first, then
add it ?
Otherwise this sounds OK to me.
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