[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.20.13.1801311638170.604@monopod.intra.ispras.ru>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 17:05:47 +0300 (MSK)
From: Alexander Monakov <amonakov@...ras.ru>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk,
sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com, f.fainelli@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: pxa168_eth: add netconsole support
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_NET_POLL_CONTROLLER
> > +static void pxa168_eth_netpoll(struct net_device *dev)
> > +{
> > + struct pxa168_eth_private *pep = netdev_priv(dev);
> > + napi_schedule(&pep->napi);
> > +}
> > +#endif
>
> This definitely is not sufficient.
>
> Look at what other drivers do.
Sorry, I did that, and got confused because some drivers bracket the interrupt
handler with disable_irq/enable_irq, some other drivers use local_irq_save/
local_irq_restore (which seems like a no-op because netconsole already uses
spin_lock_irqsave and netpoll_send_udp checks irqs_disabled), and a few drivers
call bare napi_schedule.
> You have to invoke the interrupt handler with the device's interrupts disabled,
Is this required for correctness? I have to admit I'm unsure why.
> collect the events, and most importantly mask chip interrupts before scheduling
> the NAPI instance.
And is this a matter of efficiency (not calling napi_schedule when there's
nothing to do and not keeping interrupts enabled for its duration), or also
a matter of correctness?
Sorry I'm not sending a revised patch yet, but without a firm understanding
of why changes are needed that would be a bit of a sin.
Thanks.
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists