From: Heiner Kallweit <hkallwe...@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 19:44:35 +0100
> tp->irq_mask holds the chip-specific interrupt mask. It doesn't say > whether interrupts are enabled or not. rtl_get_events() reads via > PCI(e) anyway, so I was under the impression that one more PCI(e) read > doesn't really matter. > We could introduce a flag shadowing the "interrupts are enabled" state > and use it here. But I'm not sure whether it's worth it. > Alternatively we could also go with the readw_relaxed() version to > get the values, this would eliminate the memory barrier at least. Thank for explaining, I thought ->irq_mask shadows IntrMask. I see what you are saying about rtl8169_irq_mask_and_ack() so maybe adding one more PCIe read won't matter. I think I'll apply this as-is, this was supposed to be net-next and that's why you reposted it with a corrected Subject correct?
