| To: | mchan@xxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Locking model for NAPI drivers |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 01 Jun 2005 15:21:34 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1117658019.4310.58.camel@rh4> |
| References: | <20050531.154847.63995530.davem@davemloft.net> <1117658019.4310.58.camel@rh4> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: "Michael Chan" <mchan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 13:33:39 -0700 > I suppose we can enable interrupts in tg3_irq_quiesce() after setting > the SYNC bit. Since the caller shuts down NAPI ->poll(), after setting the SYNC bit we can just check the MAILBOX register, and if a '1' is there just return. Does one need to mask out the upper bits of the regiser in order to avoid seeing the IRQ tag in such a comparison? Another potential problem is if the chip is hung for some reason, and even though an interrupt is asserted it does not send the interrupt. We'd hang in this case as well. Therefore it may be wise to add a timeout to the COMPLETE bit polling loop in order to handle such cases properly. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: RFC: PHY Abstraction Layer II, Stephen Hemminger |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Locking model for NAPI drivers, Michael Chan |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Locking model for NAPI drivers, Michael Chan |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Locking model for NAPI drivers, Michael Chan |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |