>
> +#ifdef XXX_CONFIG_IXGB_EEH_RECOVERY
> + if(unlikely(icr==EEH_IO_ERROR_VALUE(4))) {
> + if (eeh_slot_is_isolated (adapter->pdev))
> + // disable_irq_nosync (adapter->pdev->irq);
> + return IRQ_NONE; /* Not our interrupt */
So does the return belong below the first or the second if()? It certainly
looks weird.
And returning IRQ_NONE looks wrong too - if means if
the hardware is broken and there is nobody else on the same interrupt
then the kernel will complain about buggy drivers, which is not true
here. Probably it needs a new IRQ_ERR return value or somesuch that
stops the complaining and acts otherwise like IRQ_NONE.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
