Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:09:08 -0500 (EST) From: "Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net> To: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bus_setup_intr() vs. ether_ifattach() race Message-ID: <20030210110700.J15295@sasami.jurai.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0302092214480.29408-100000@root.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0302092214480.29408-100000@root.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Nate Lawson wrote: > Which is the correct order to do these two functions? If the irq is > enabled before the device is attached, it seems a response cannot be > sent if a packet arrives before the attach. The right way seems to be > to attach the device before setting up an irq but does this have side > effects? The interrupt handler should be checking IFF_UP. The driver shouldn't enable card interrupts until if_init() has been run and should disable them in it foo_stop() routine (or when the interface is brought down, detached etc.) -- | Matthew N. Dodd | '78 Datsun 280Z | '75 Volvo 164E | FreeBSD/NetBSD | | winter@jurai.net | 2 x '84 Volvo 245DL | ix86,sparc,pmax | | http://www.jurai.net/~winter | For Great Justice! | ISO8802.5 4ever | To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030210110700.J15295>