After making use of the gro_flush_timeout attribute I once got a
tx timeout due to an interrupt that wasn't handled. Seems using
irq_enabled can be racy, and it's not needed any longer anyway,
so remove it. I've never seen a report about such a race before,
therefore treat the change as an improvement.

There's just one small drawback: If a legacy PCI interrupt is used,
and if this interrupt is shared with a device with high interrupt
rate, then we may handle interrupts even if NAPI disabled them,
and we may see a certain performance decrease under high network load.

Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallwe...@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_main.c | 6 +-----
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_main.c 
b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_main.c
index dbc324c53..c427865d5 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_main.c
@@ -617,7 +617,6 @@ struct rtl8169_private {
                struct work_struct work;
        } wk;
 
-       unsigned irq_enabled:1;
        unsigned supports_gmii:1;
        unsigned aspm_manageable:1;
        dma_addr_t counters_phys_addr;
@@ -1280,12 +1279,10 @@ static void rtl_irq_disable(struct rtl8169_private *tp)
                RTL_W32(tp, IntrMask_8125, 0);
        else
                RTL_W16(tp, IntrMask, 0);
-       tp->irq_enabled = 0;
 }
 
 static void rtl_irq_enable(struct rtl8169_private *tp)
 {
-       tp->irq_enabled = 1;
        if (rtl_is_8125(tp))
                RTL_W32(tp, IntrMask_8125, tp->irq_mask);
        else
@@ -4541,8 +4538,7 @@ static irqreturn_t rtl8169_interrupt(int irq, void 
*dev_instance)
        struct rtl8169_private *tp = dev_instance;
        u32 status = rtl_get_events(tp);
 
-       if (!tp->irq_enabled || (status & 0xffff) == 0xffff ||
-           !(status & tp->irq_mask))
+       if ((status & 0xffff) == 0xffff || !(status & tp->irq_mask))
                return IRQ_NONE;
 
        if (unlikely(status & SYSErr)) {
-- 
2.28.0


Reply via email to