[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070827.141813.115913906.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:18:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: jchapman@...alix.com
Cc: auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com, 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()
From: James Chapman <jchapman@...alix.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:03:15 +0100
> Kok, Auke wrote:
> > James Chapman wrote:
> >> 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 ?
>
> I think the order shouldn't matter. DaveM?
It doesn't matter.
I'm beginning to think maybe we should do an implicit napi_disable()
in netif_napi_add(), then it's easier for drivers to play nice.
On open you do napi_enable(), in close you do napi_disable().
That's it.
And anywhere else in your driver that you have to napi_disable()
(suspend, recovering from hardware errors, etc.) you must be sure to
do the associated napi_enable() later on in order to keep things
balanced.
-
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