In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 11:54:06AM -0700, Dale Farnsworth wrote:
>
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_NET_POLL_CONTROLLER
> > +/*
> > + * Polling - used by netconsole and other diagnostic tools
> > + * to allow network i/o with interrupts disabled.
> > + */
> > +static void gfar_netpoll(struct net_device *dev)
> > +{
> > + struct gfar_private *priv = netdev_priv(dev);
> > +
> > + if (priv->einfo->device_flags & FSL_GIANFAR_DEV_HAS_MULTI_INTR) {
> > + disable_irq(priv->interruptReceive);
> > + disable_irq(priv->interruptTransmit);
> > + disable_irq(priv->interruptError);
> > + gfar_interrupt(priv->interruptTransmit, dev, NULL);
> > + enable_irq(priv->interruptError);
> > + enable_irq(priv->interruptTransmit);
> > + enable_irq(priv->interruptReceive);
> > + } else {
> > + disable_irq(priv->interruptTransmit);
> > + gfar_interrupt(priv->interruptTransmit, dev, NULL);
> > + enable_irq(priv->interruptTransmit);
> > + }
> > +}
> > +#endif
>
> Do the multiple interrupts need to be disabled/enabled in that order?
> I'm presuming that is why you replicated the code for the tx interrupt
> and for calling gfar_interrupt.
>
> Of course, I'm not sure that doing it some other way would be any less
> ugly either... :-)
>
> I do not object to this patch. I'm just being curious.
I don't know that the order is critical. Maybe Kumar can comment.
-Dale
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
