Re: [E1000-devel] [PATCH net-2.6.24] e100: fix driver init lockup on e100_up()

[James Chapman <jchapman@katalix.com>]

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 <jchapman@katalix.com>
>>
>> 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