[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1231542792.2142.87.camel@pasglop>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:13:11 +1100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <Geert.Uytterhoeven@...ycom.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...il.com>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
Sean MacLennan <smaclennan@...atech.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: mal_probe crash
On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 09:34 +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 03:42:25PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >
> > > There isn't that I know of. The EMAC code creates a single NAPI instance
> > > for all EMACs and I think used to completely disconnect things. The old
> > > code created a fake netdev just for NAPI, that became unnecessary with
> > > the new NAPI stuff.... but it looks like the way we do things now
> > > displeases some changes in the network stack. I'll have to dig.
> >
> > Verified on my Sequoia (which now lost its network :-(
> >
> > The regression/problem (requiring a valid net_device in netif_napi_add(), even
> > if CONFIG_NETPOLL=n) seems to be introduced by commit
> > d565b0a1a9b6ee7dff46e1f68b26b526ac11ae50 ("net: Add Generic Receive Offload
> > infrastructure").
>
> Yes EMAC just needs to go back to the old fake dev setup.
One thing I wanted to do back then... which triggered the discussion
with Stephen just before he broke NAPI up from netdev, was to add a core
function that creates such dummy netdev so that drivers don't have to
break every time some new internal field changes or such...
I'll give that a spin asap, though it might have to wait for monday.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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