Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 04:10:56PM CET, parav@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 7:26 AM
>>
>> Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 06:00:38AM CET, parav@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> >To easily audit the code, better to keep the device stop() sequence to
>> >be mirror of the device open() sequence.
>> >
>> >Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> If this is not fixing bug (which I believe is the case), you should target it to net-
>> next ([patch net-next] ..).
>>
>Yes. Right. First one was fix for net-rc, second was for net-next. And 2nd depends on the first to avoid merge conflicts.
>So, I was unsure how to handle it.
>Can you please suggest?
1) Send the fix to -net
2) Wait until -net is merged into -net-next
3) Send the second patch to -net-next
>
>
>>
>> >---
>> > drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 2 +-
>> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> >diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c index
>> >b7d0b54c3bb0..1f8168e0f64d 100644
>> >--- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
>> >+++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
>> >@@ -2279,9 +2279,9 @@ static int virtnet_close(struct net_device *dev)
>> > cancel_delayed_work_sync(&vi->refill);
>> >
>> > for (i = 0; i < vi->max_queue_pairs; i++) {
>> >+ virtnet_napi_tx_disable(&vi->sq[i].napi);
>> > napi_disable(&vi->rq[i].napi);
>> > xdp_rxq_info_unreg(&vi->rq[i].xdp_rxq);
>> >- virtnet_napi_tx_disable(&vi->sq[i].napi);
>> > }
>> >
>> > return 0;
>> >--
>> >2.26.2
>> >
