From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Kok, Auke" Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] [PATCH net-2.6.24] e100: fix driver init lockup on e100_up() Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 10:09:51 -0700 Message-ID: <46D3055F.5060201@intel.com> References: <200708271706.l7RH6wT0024567@quickie.katalix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To: James Chapman Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:2427 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757760AbXH0RK0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:10:26 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200708271706.l7RH6wT0024567@quickie.katalix.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org 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 > > 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