On 15.12.2018 20:15, David Miller wrote:
> 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?
>
Right, I missed to state net vs. net-next.
>
