[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BY2PR07MB486D1ABE6E149FC2FE06217FE680@BY2PR07MB486.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 00:47:20 +0000
From: "Chickles, Derek" <Derek.Chickles@...iumnetworks.com>
To: Lino Sanfilippo <LinoSanfilippo@....de>,
"Vatsavayi, Raghu" <Raghu.Vatsavayi@...iumnetworks.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"Burla, Satananda" <Satananda.Burla@...iumnetworks.com>,
"Manlunas, Felix" <Felix.Manlunas@...iumnetworks.com>,
"Vatsavayi, Raghu" <Raghu.Vatsavayi@...iumnetworks.com>,
stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v3] Add support of Cavium Liquidio ethernet
adapters
> > static int
> > +oct_cfg_rx_intrcnt(struct lio *lio, struct ethtool_coalesce *intr_coal)
> > +{
>
> > + }
> > +
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&cn6xxx->lock_for_droq_int_enb_reg, flags);
> > + octeon_write_csr(oct, OCT_SLI_REGNAME(oct, PKT_CNT_INT_ENB),
> intr);
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cn6xxx->lock_for_droq_int_enb_reg,
> flags);
> > +
> > + return 0;
>
> What is the reason that this is locked? If it really has to be
> synchronized then there should AFAIK at least be an mmiowb() to make
> sure that the write does not leak out of the lock...
>
> Regards,
> Lino
>
Yes, we need this locked because the interrupt handler accesses this as well,
But you are right we need the mmiowb().
Thanks,
Derek
--
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