From: James Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:03:15 +0100
> Kok, Auke wrote: > > James Chapman wrote: > >> 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? It doesn't matter. I'm beginning to think maybe we should do an implicit napi_disable() in netif_napi_add(), then it's easier for drivers to play nice. On open you do napi_enable(), in close you do napi_disable(). That's it. And anywhere else in your driver that you have to napi_disable() (suspend, recovering from hardware errors, etc.) you must be sure to do the associated napi_enable() later on in order to keep things balanced. - 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
