From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] gianfar: Make polling safe with IRQs disabled Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:05:33 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20091108.010533.212571001.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20091104225711.GA30844@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, afleming@freescale.com, jason.wessel@windriver.com To: avorontsov@ru.mvista.com Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20091104225711.GA30844@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linuxppc-dev-bounces+glppd-linuxppc64-dev=m.gmane.org@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+glppd-linuxppc64-dev=m.gmane.org@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Anton Vorontsov Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 01:57:11 +0300 > When using KGDBoE, gianfar driver spits 'Interrupt problem' messages, > which appears to be a legitimate warning, i.e. we may end up calling > netif_receive_skb() or vlan_hwaccel_receive_skb() with IRQs disabled. > > This patch reworks the RX path so that if netpoll is enabled (the > only case when the driver don't know from what context the polling > may be called), we check whether IRQs are disabled, and if so we > fall back to safe variants of skb receiving functions. > > Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov This is bogus, I'll tell you why. When you go into netif_receive_skb() we have a special check, "if (netpoll_receive_skb(..." that takes care of all of the details concerning doing a ->poll() from IRQ disabled context via netpoll. So this code you're adding should not be necessary. Or, explain to me why no other driver needs special logic in their ->poll() handler like this and does not run into any kinds of netpoll problems :-)