On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 11:54:06AM -0700, Dale Farnsworth wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_NET_POLL_CONTROLLER
> +/*
> + * Polling - used by netconsole and other diagnostic tools
> + * to allow network i/o with interrupts disabled.
> + */
> +static void gfar_netpoll(struct net_device *dev)
> +{
> + struct gfar_private *priv = netdev_priv(dev);
> +
> + if (priv->einfo->device_flags & FSL_GIANFAR_DEV_HAS_MULTI_INTR) {
> + disable_irq(priv->interruptReceive);
> + disable_irq(priv->interruptTransmit);
> + disable_irq(priv->interruptError);
> + gfar_interrupt(priv->interruptTransmit, dev, NULL);
> + enable_irq(priv->interruptError);
> + enable_irq(priv->interruptTransmit);
> + enable_irq(priv->interruptReceive);
> + } else {
> + disable_irq(priv->interruptTransmit);
> + gfar_interrupt(priv->interruptTransmit, dev, NULL);
> + enable_irq(priv->interruptTransmit);
> + }
> +}
> +#endif
Do the multiple interrupts need to be disabled/enabled in that order?
I'm presuming that is why you replicated the code for the tx interrupt
and for calling gfar_interrupt.
Of course, I'm not sure that doing it some other way would be any less
ugly either... :-)
I do not object to this patch. I'm just being curious.
John
--
John W. Linville
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
