Kok, Auke wrote:
James Chapman wrote:
Recent NAPI changes require that napi_enable() is always matched with
a napi_disable(). This patch makes sure that this invariant holds for
e100. It also moves the netif_napi_add() call until after private
pointers have been intialized, though this might only be significant
for cases where netpoll is being used.
Signed-off-by: James Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff --git a/drivers/net/e100.c b/drivers/net/e100.c
index e25f5ec..48996a4 100644
--- a/drivers/net/e100.c
+++ b/drivers/net/e100.c
@@ -2575,11 +2575,12 @@ static int __devinit e100_probe(struct pci_dev
*pdev,
strncpy(netdev->name, pci_name(pdev), sizeof(netdev->name) - 1);
nic = netdev_priv(netdev);
- netif_napi_add(netdev, &nic->napi, e100_poll, E100_NAPI_WEIGHT);
nic->netdev = netdev;
nic->pdev = pdev;
nic->msg_enable = (1 << debug) - 1;
pci_set_drvdata(pdev, netdev);
+ netif_napi_add(netdev, &nic->napi, e100_poll, E100_NAPI_WEIGHT);
+ napi_disable(&nic->napi);
Just wondering, could we even reverse this order? IOW disable NAPI
first, then add it ?
I think the order shouldn't matter. DaveM?
Otherwise this sounds OK to me.
--
James Chapman
Katalix Systems Ltd
http://www.katalix.com
Catalysts for your Embedded Linux software development
-
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
