[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20091108.010533.212571001.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:05:33 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: avorontsov@...mvista.com
Cc: afleming@...escale.com, jason.wessel@...driver.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] gianfar: Make polling safe with IRQs disabled
From: Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@...mvista.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 01:57:11 +0300
> When using KGDBoE, gianfar driver spits 'Interrupt problem' messages,
> which appears to be a legitimate warning, i.e. we may end up calling
> netif_receive_skb() or vlan_hwaccel_receive_skb() with IRQs disabled.
>
> This patch reworks the RX path so that if netpoll is enabled (the
> only case when the driver don't know from what context the polling
> may be called), we check whether IRQs are disabled, and if so we
> fall back to safe variants of skb receiving functions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@...mvista.com>
This is bogus, I'll tell you why.
When you go into netif_receive_skb() we have a special check,
"if (netpoll_receive_skb(..." that takes care of all of the
details concerning doing a ->poll() from IRQ disabled context
via netpoll.
So this code you're adding should not be necessary.
Or, explain to me why no other driver needs special logic in their
->poll() handler like this and does not run into any kinds of netpoll
problems :-)
--
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