On Thursday 12 July 2007 04:33, David Miller wrote: > I'll add merge your patch with a target of 2.6.23 > > If you really want, after this patch has sat in 2.6.23 for a while > and got some good testing, we can consider a submission for -stable.
Okay, those of you who followed the discussion on lkml will have read why this patch breaks on e1000. Short summary: some NIC drivers expect that there is a one-to-one relation between calls to net_rx_schedule (where we put the device on the poll list) and netif_rx_complete (where it's supposed to be taken off the list). The e1000 is such a beast. Not sure if other drivers make the same assumption re NAPI. So: should a driver be allowed to rely on this behavior? Or should I go and look for another fix to the poll_napi issue? I keep coming back to the question Jarek asked - why does netpoll want to call dev->poll() anyway? I dug around a little and it seems the original idea was to do this only if netpoll_poll was running on the CPU the netdevice was scheduled to. So one way to fix the problem is to add a dev->poll_cpu field that tells us on which CPU's poll list it has been added - and check for this in poll_napi. Comments? David, should I submit an updated patch for 2.6.23, or do you prefer to yank the patch now and try again for 2.6.24? Olaf -- Olaf Kirch | --- o --- Nous sommes du soleil we love when we play [EMAIL PROTECTED] | / | \ sol.dhoop.naytheet.ah kin.ir.samse.qurax - 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
