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