[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20210330114559.1114855-37-mkl@pengutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 13:45:56 +0200
From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
To: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...gutronix.de, Dario Binacchi <dariobin@...ero.it>,
Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
Subject: [net-next 36/39] can: c_can: add a comment about IF_RX interface's use
From: Dario Binacchi <dariobin@...ero.it>
After reading the commit 640916db2bf7 ("can: c_can: Make it SMP safe")
it may sound strange to see the IF_RX interface used by the
can_inval_tx_object function. A comment was added to avoid any
misunderstanding.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210302215435.18286-4-dariobin@libero.it
Signed-off-by: Dario Binacchi <dariobin@...ero.it>
Signed-off-by: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
---
drivers/net/can/c_can/c_can.c | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/net/can/c_can/c_can.c b/drivers/net/can/c_can/c_can.c
index 8212f3d98aa9..980abf6a8609 100644
--- a/drivers/net/can/c_can/c_can.c
+++ b/drivers/net/can/c_can/c_can.c
@@ -710,6 +710,11 @@ static void c_can_do_tx(struct net_device *dev)
idx--;
pend &= ~(1 << idx);
obj = idx + C_CAN_MSG_OBJ_TX_FIRST;
+
+ /* We use IF_RX interface instead of IF_TX because we
+ * are called from c_can_poll(), which runs inside
+ * NAPI. We are not trasmitting.
+ */
c_can_inval_tx_object(dev, IF_RX, obj);
can_get_echo_skb(dev, idx, NULL);
bytes += priv->dlc[idx];
--
2.30.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists