On Wed, 2017-02-01 at 18:29 -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > > I could not convince myself that napi_synchronize() is sufficient here > (mostly because I am not familiar with napi flow). At the same time I > would rather not make changes in anticipation of possible disappearance > of netif_carrier_ok() in the future so I'd like this patch to go in as is. > > Unless there are other problems with the patch or if Eric (or others) > feel strongly about usage of netif_carrier_ok() here. >
No strong feelings from me. We probably have more serious issues to fix anyway.
