Hi Auke, On 4/26/06, Auke Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm concerned about the addition of the netif_running check to > e1000_down. While something like this is needed, I'm not familiar > enough w/ the code to know if this is okay. > All explanations and comments are greatly appreciated. While I appreciate patches ;^) I think we're on a better path by making these cleanups, and actually reducing the code in large places. I hope to be able to push something out for RFC soon. Added benefit will be that we're dropping a whole bunch of irq operations where we didn't need to (soft resets).
Well, it looks like my patch won't work as the e1000_close is called by dev.c only after it clears the __LINK_STATE_START bit, which means that e1000_down will exit prematurely when called from e1000_close in my approach. Any feedback on the approach would be appreciated, as your upcoming patch sounds like it might be too aggressive to get put into a stabilization patch. ;) I understand the need to fix the problems associated with the watchdog_task as well, though I wonder if it wouldn't be better to remove it altogether given the complexity of cleaning up after these tasks in general. I've personally had more problems with the watchdog task than with the possible sleep in the watchdog timer code. I can't help but siding with the RedHat folks who currently ship a version of the e1000 driver that fixes the mechanism used to sleep instead of the watchdog_task approach. Perhaps I missed the discussion of this, I'm only finding the patch itself with google. Thanks, Shaw - 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
