s390/qeth: move netif_napi_add_tx() and napi_enable() from under BH

Like other drivers qeth is calling local_bh_enable() after napi_schedule() to kick-start softirqs [0].
Since netif_napi_add_tx() and napi_enable() now take the netdev_lock() mutex [1], move them out from under the BH protection. Same solution as in commit a60558644e20 ("wifi: mt76: move napi_enable() from under BH")

---
 drivers/s390/net/qeth_core_main.c | 8 +++++---
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

index a3adaec5504e..20328d695ef9 100644
@@ -7050,14 +7050,16 @@ int qeth_open(struct net_device *dev)
 	card->data.state = CH_STATE_UP;
 	netif_tx_start_all_queues(dev);
 
-	local_bh_disable();
 	qeth_for_each_output_queue(card, queue, i) {
 		netif_napi_add_tx(dev, &queue->napi, qeth_tx_poll);
 		napi_enable(&queue->napi);
-		napi_schedule(&queue->napi);
 	}
-
 	napi_enable(&card->napi);
+
+	local_bh_disable();
+	qeth_for_each_output_queue(card, queue, i) {
+		napi_schedule(&queue->napi);
+	}
 	napi_schedule(&card->napi);
 	/* kick-start the NAPI softirq: */
 	local_bh_enable();

2.45.2

Hm, I wonder if the fixes should be for commit 413f0271f396 ("net:
protect NAPI enablement with netdev_lock()") instead ?

Other than the above, I briefly scanned the driver source and the change seems reasonable.

I am not sure whether a different Fixes is needed or not (I'll leave that to the maintainers to decide), but whether this is fine as is or is re-posted with a new Fixes tag:

I was wondering about that too. netif_napi_add_tx() got the lock in 1b23cdbd2bbc and napi_enable() got the lock in 413f0271f396.
I don't think I can have 2 Fixes tags, can I?
(And I don't think it makes sense to split these few lines up into 2 commits) I chose 1b23cdbd2bbc because it is the earlier one.