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 ?
Otherwise this sounds OK to me. Auke - 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
