[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200105220832.GA21914@lunn.ch>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2020 23:08:32 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Maya Erez <merez@...eaurora.org>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, wil6210@....qualcomm.com,
Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] epic100: allow nesting of ethtool_ops
begin() and complete()
> @@ -1435,8 +1436,10 @@ static int ethtool_begin(struct net_device *dev)
> struct epic_private *ep = netdev_priv(dev);
> void __iomem *ioaddr = ep->ioaddr;
>
> + if (ep->ethtool_ops_nesting == U32_MAX)
> + return -EBUSY;
> /* power-up, if interface is down */
> - if (!netif_running(dev)) {
> + if (ep->ethtool_ops_nesting++ && !netif_running(dev)) {
> ew32(GENCTL, 0x0200);
> ew32(NVCTL, (er32(NVCTL) & ~0x003c) | 0x4800);
> }
Hi Michal
In the via-velocity you added:
+ if (vptr->ethtool_ops_nesting == U32_MAX)
+ return -EBUSY;
+ if (!vptr->ethtool_ops_nesting++ && !netif_running(dev))
velocity_set_power_state(vptr, PCI_D0);
return 0;
These two fragments differ by a ! . Is that correct?
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists