From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH] e1000: Don't enable polling in open() (was: e1000: assertion hit in e1000_clean(), kernel 2.6.21.1) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 21:22:27 -0400 Message-ID: <20070522012227.GD11401@redhat.com> References: <20070521215134.14885.84952.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20070521221635.GA16888@redhat.com> <20070522004921.GA8130@gondor.apana.org.au> <46524033.4030901@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jeff@garzik.org, e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Herbert Xu , greg@suse.de, stable@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: "Kok, Auke" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46524033.4030901@intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: e1000-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: e1000-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 05:58:27PM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote: > >> This probably doesn't solve the latter bug. > >> The code you reference isn't there in the kernel tested in that bug > >> (2.6.21) In 2.6.21, netif_poll_enable is only called from > >> e1000_up(), not e1000_open() > > > > Yes we need a different fix for 2.6.21. There e1000_open calls > > e1000_up which is why we still get the netif_poll_enable. > > yes, basically they need the patch that introduced(exposed) the problem as well, > but that is a rather significant change and kind of moves the whole > netstack-init code in e1000 around. The size was the reason why that patch > didn't go into 2.6.21 in the first place, but perhaps they can pull both patches > into the FC tree. > > For reference, this is the commit: > > commit e0aac5a289b1dacbc94bd9ae8c449bcdf9ab508c > Author: Auke Kok > Date: Tue Mar 6 08:57:21 2007 -0800 > > e1000: FIX: be ready for incoming irq at pci_request_irq > > DEBUG_SHIRQ code exposed that e1000 was not ready for incoming interrupts > after having called pci_request_irq. This obviously requires us to finish > our software setup which assigns the irq handler before we request the > irq. > > Signed-off-by: Auke Kok > Signed-off-by: Jeff Garzik > > Dave, would that be an option for you? Sounds like a plan. I'll do a test-build with this and the other patch, and throw it at the people seeing the problem tomorrow. Thanks, Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/