From: Wang Chen <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:33:09 +0800
Quoted 2 lines
e1000_adapter->polling_netdev is not actually used after allocated. So, my question is that is it useless?
It's probably a leftover from before we added support for multiqueue NAPI.
Intel folks can probably confirm.
--

Yeah, Dave appears to be correct.

Signature · 2 lines

Cheers,
Jeff

Wang Chen

author

2008-12-03 12:57 UTC #3 lore raw

PATCH 1/2 e1000: e1000_adapter->polling_netdev is useless

In reply to David Miller

David Miller said the following on 2008-12-3 7:06:

Quoted 10 lines

From: Wang Chen <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:33:09 +0800
Quoted 2 lines
e1000_adapter->polling_netdev is not actually used after allocated. So, my question is that is it useless?
It's probably a leftover from before we added support for multiqueue NAPI.
Intel folks can probably confirm.

Commit bea3348eef27e6044b6161fd04c3152215f96411
"[NET]: Make NAPI polling independent of struct net_device objects." made NAPI polling to be independent of net_device.
So e1000_adapter->polling_netdev is no longer used.
Kill it.

Signed-off-by Wang Chen <[email protected]>

---
 drivers/net/e1000/e1000.h      |    1 -
 drivers/net/e1000/e1000_main.c |   27 +--------------------------
 2 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)

drivers/net/e1000/e1000.h +0 -1

index 62f6297..f5581de 100644
@@ -284,7 +284,6 @@ struct e1000_adapter {
 			     int cleaned_count);
 	struct e1000_rx_ring *rx_ring;      /* One per active queue */
 	struct napi_struct napi;
-	struct net_device *polling_netdev;  /* One per active queue */
 
 	int num_tx_queues;
 	int num_rx_queues;

drivers/net/e1000/e1000_main.c +1 ~~-26~~

index 6494d24..116c96e 100644
@@ -1242,12 +1242,8 @@ err_eeprom:
 	if (hw->flash_address)
 		iounmap(hw->flash_address);
 err_flashmap:
-	for (i = 0; i < adapter->num_rx_queues; i++)
-		dev_put(&adapter->polling_netdev[i]);
-
 	kfree(adapter->tx_ring);
 	kfree(adapter->rx_ring);
-	kfree(adapter->polling_netdev);
 err_sw_init:
 	iounmap(hw->hw_addr);
 err_ioremap:

@@ -1275,7 +1271,6 @@ static void __devexit e1000_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev)
 	struct net_device *netdev = pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
 	struct e1000_adapter *adapter = netdev_priv(netdev);
 	struct e1000_hw *hw = &adapter->hw;
-	int i;
 
 	cancel_work_sync(&adapter->reset_task);

@@ -1285,9 +1280,6 @@ static void __devexit e1000_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev)
 	 * would have already happened in close and is redundant. */
 	e1000_release_hw_control(adapter);
 
-	for (i = 0; i < adapter->num_rx_queues; i++)
-		dev_put(&adapter->polling_netdev[i]);
-
 	unregister_netdev(netdev);
 
 	if (!e1000_check_phy_reset_block(hw))

@@ -1295,7 +1287,6 @@ static void __devexit e1000_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev)
 
 	kfree(adapter->tx_ring);
 	kfree(adapter->rx_ring);
-	kfree(adapter->polling_netdev);
 
 	iounmap(hw->hw_addr);
 	if (hw->flash_address)

@@ -1321,7 +1312,6 @@ static int __devinit e1000_sw_init(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
 	struct e1000_hw *hw = &adapter->hw;
 	struct net_device *netdev = adapter->netdev;
 	struct pci_dev *pdev = adapter->pdev;
-	int i;
 
 	/* PCI config space info */

@@ -1378,11 +1368,6 @@ static int __devinit e1000_sw_init(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 	}
 
-	for (i = 0; i < adapter->num_rx_queues; i++) {
-		adapter->polling_netdev[i].priv = adapter;
-		dev_hold(&adapter->polling_netdev[i]);
-		set_bit(__LINK_STATE_START, &adapter->polling_netdev[i].state);
-	}
 	spin_lock_init(&adapter->tx_queue_lock);
 
 	/* Explicitly disable IRQ since the NIC can be in any state. */

@@ -1400,8 +1385,7 @@ static int __devinit e1000_sw_init(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
  * @adapter: board private structure to initialize
  *
  * We allocate one ring per queue at run-time since we don't know the
- * number of queues at compile-time.  The polling_netdev array is
- * intended for Multiqueue, but should work fine with a single queue.
+ * number of queues at compile-time.
  **/
 
 static int __devinit e1000_alloc_queues(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)

@@ -1418,15 +1402,6 @@ static int __devinit e1000_alloc_queues(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 	}
 
-	adapter->polling_netdev = kcalloc(adapter->num_rx_queues,
-	                                  sizeof(struct net_device),
-	                                  GFP_KERNEL);
-	if (!adapter->polling_netdev) {
-		kfree(adapter->tx_ring);
-		kfree(adapter->rx_ring);
-		return -ENOMEM;
-	}
-
 	return E1000_SUCCESS;
 }

Signature · 1 line

1.5.3.4

Wang Chen

author

2008-12-03 12:57 UTC #7 lore raw

PATCH 2/2 ixgbe: function comment typo

In reply to David Miller

Seems the ixgbe's code was copied from e1000.
The comment talks about something not exist.

Signed-off-by Wang Chen <[email protected]>

---
 drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c |    3 +--
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c +1 -2

index e014a73..a7aa892 100644
@@ -2521,8 +2521,7 @@ static void ixgbe_cache_ring_register(struct ixgbe_adapter *adapter)
  * @adapter: board private structure to initialize
  *
  * We allocate one ring per queue at run-time since we don't know the
- * number of queues at compile-time.  The polling_netdev array is
- * intended for Multiqueue, but should work fine with a single queue.
+ * number of queues at compile-time.
  **/
 static int ixgbe_alloc_queues(struct ixgbe_adapter *adapter)
 {

Signature · 1 line

1.5.3.4

Kirsher, Jeffrey T

2008-12-03 22:44 UTC #4 lore raw

In reply to Wang Chen

Quoted 25 lines

-----Original Message-----
From: Wang Chen [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 4:58 AM
To: David Miller
Cc: Kirsher, Jeffrey T; [email protected]
Subject: [PATCH next 1/2]e1000: e1000_adapter->polling_netdev is useless
David Miller said the following on 2008-12-3 7:06:
Quoted 10 lines
From: Wang Chen <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:33:09 +0800
Quoted 2 lines
e1000_adapter->polling_netdev is not actually used after allocated. So, my question is that is it useless?
It's probably a leftover from before we added support for multiqueue NAPI.
Intel folks can probably confirm.
Commit bea3348eef27e6044b6161fd04c3152215f96411
"[NET]: Make NAPI polling independent of struct net_device objects." made NAPI polling to be independent of net_device.
So e1000_adapter->polling_netdev is no longer used.
Kill it.

Quoted 6 lines

Signed-off-by Wang Chen <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/e1000/e1000.h | 1 -
drivers/net/e1000/e1000_main.c | 27 +--------------------------
2 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)

Just to make sure that this does not break anything, I currently have this patch in testing.

Cheers,
Jeff

Kirsher, Jeffrey T

Acked-by on v1 2/2

2008-12-03 22:48 UTC #8 lore raw

RE: [PATCH next 2/2]ixgbe: function comment typo

In reply to Wang Chen

Quoted 7 lines

-----Original Message-----
From: Wang Chen [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 4:58 AM
To: David Miller
Cc: Kirsher, Jeffrey T; [email protected]
Subject: [PATCH next 2/2]ixgbe: function comment typo

Quoted 7 lines

Seems the ixgbe's code was copied from e1000. The comment talks about something not exist.
Signed-off-by Wang Chen <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c | 3 +--
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Acked-by Jeff Kirsher <[email protected]>

Cheers,
Jeff

Jeff Kirsher

Tested-by Emil Tantilov Acked-by on v1 1/2

2008-12-03 23:59 UTC #5 lore raw

In reply to Wang Chen

Quoted 18 lines · Wang Chen

David Miller said the following on 2008-12-3 7:06:
Quoted 10 lines
From: Wang Chen <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:33:09 +0800
Quoted 2 lines
e1000_adapter->polling_netdev is not actually used after allocated. So, my question is that is it useless?
It's probably a leftover from before we added support for multiqueue NAPI.
Intel folks can probably confirm.
Commit bea3348eef27e6044b6161fd04c3152215f96411
"[NET]: Make NAPI polling independent of struct net_device objects." made NAPI polling to be independent of net_device.
So e1000_adapter->polling_netdev is no longer used.
Kill it.

Quoted 6 lines

Signed-off-by Wang Chen <[email protected]>

---
 drivers/net/e1000/e1000.h      |    1 -
 drivers/net/e1000/e1000_main.c |   27 +--------------------------
 2 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)

Testing looks good.

Tested-by Emil Tantilov <[email protected]>

Acked-by Jeff Kirsher <[email protected]>

Signature · 2 lines

Cheers,
Jeff

David Miller

maintainer Applied

2008-12-04 06:06 UTC #9 lore raw

Re: [PATCH next 2/2]ixgbe: function comment typo

In reply to Kirsher, Jeffrey T

From: "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 14:42:51 -0800

Quoted 10 lines

Quoted 10 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: Wang Chen [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 4:58 AM
To: David Miller
Cc: Kirsher, Jeffrey T; [email protected]
Subject: [PATCH next 2/2]ixgbe: function comment typo
Seems the ixgbe's code was copied from e1000. The comment talks about something not exist.

Quoted 6 lines

Quoted 4 lines
Signed-off-by Wang Chen <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c | 3 +--
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Acked-by Jeff Kirsher <[email protected]>

Applied, thanks everyone.

David Miller

maintainer Applied

2008-12-04 06:07 UTC #6 lore raw

In reply to Wang Chen

From: Wang Chen <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:57:41 +0800

Quoted 12 lines

David Miller said the following on 2008-12-3 7:06:
Quoted 10 lines
From: Wang Chen <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:33:09 +0800
Quoted 2 lines
e1000_adapter->polling_netdev is not actually used after allocated. So, my question is that is it useless?
It's probably a leftover from before we added support for multiqueue NAPI.
Intel folks can probably confirm.

Quoted 7 lines

Commit bea3348eef27e6044b6161fd04c3152215f96411
"[NET]: Make NAPI polling independent of struct net_device objects." made NAPI polling to be independent of net_device.
So e1000_adapter->polling_netdev is no longer used.
Kill it.
Signed-off-by Wang Chen <[email protected]>

Applied, thanks Wang.

Jeff, I know you said you are regression-testing this. If you find some problem we can revert or add a fix.

Thanks!