From: Jeff Garzik <redacted>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:00:31 -0400

David Miller wrote:

quoted

From: Jeff Garzik <redacted>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:55:08 -0400

quoted

I don't see any logic to your request, only added overhead for no reason.

There may be some flawed logic in what Stephen stated, but
the change really is needed.

It must be atomic to execute the:

	enable_interrupts();
	netif_rx_complete();

sequence wrt. the same code path in the interrupt handler.

Sure.  And how did the existing code fail to achieve that?

The interrupt handler can run on another cpu in betwen those two
statements, running the NAPI test-and-do-something operations in
parallel with the netif_rx_complete() which causes problems as Rusty
and I discussed yesterday.