Grant Grundler wrote:
Ok...I think I understand what you are driving at here.
The case is when CPU vector is enabled and shared but
one device _without_ an interrupt handler is registered
is still yanking on the interrupt line. It will cause
linux to disable the line since the IRQ isn't being handled.
Correct.
Can we call free_irq() from tulip_down()?
I'm sure you can answer that yourself. If it doesn't cause problems
elsewhere, yes. Otherwise, no. :)
Did you read the example I cited, cp_close() ?
Jeff
-
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
