[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <OF91A6D7F4.9B4360B2-ON8025754A.0035FFA5-8025754A.0036C687@smsc.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 09:56:55 +0000
From: Steve.Glendinning@...c.com
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: ian.saturley@...c.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] smsc911x: protect INT_EN read-modify-write with spinlock
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote on 26/01/2009 01:47:36:
> From: Steve Glendinning <steve.glendinning@...c.com>
> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:01:54 +0000
>
> > This patch adds a new spinlock to protect read-modify-writes to the
> > INT_EN register when enabling and disabling interrupt sources.
> >
> > I haven't actually seen any devices lock up, but I think there's a
> > possibility and I'd like to eliminate it.
> >
> > Should I add this new spinlock, or should I extend the mac_lock
> > to also cover these sections (renaming it to simply "lock")?
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Steve Glendinning <steve.glendinning@...c.com>
>
> If you didn't have all of these RX multicast workaround
> cases, things would be much easier.
>
> The POLL and normal interrupt paths are already completely atomic for
> you already. And since POLL cannot happen until open() completes
> that path would be safe too.
>
Thanks for looking this over David.
It looks like I can do away with the need for this if I leave RXSTOP_INT
permanently enabled and use a flag in pdata to indicate whether the ISR
should do a multicast filter update. Does this sound reasonable?
Please drop this patch.
Steve
--
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