On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> On 04/21/2015 08:21 AM, Mathias Nyman wrote:
> [...]
> > On the other hand if we just removed xhci, and share the interrupt with
> > somebody else who is
> > also generating an interrupts, then we would probably continue to read
> > 0x from the
On 04/21/2015 08:21 AM, Mathias Nyman wrote:
[...]
> On the other hand if we just removed xhci, and share the interrupt with
> somebody else who is
> also generating an interrupts, then we would probably continue to read
> 0x from the status reg and
> should return IRQ_NONE.
Yes, I thin
On 20.04.2015 23:39, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015, Joe Lawrence wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 01:35:40PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015, Joe Lawrence wrote:
>>>
So -ESHUTDOWN = -108 (0xff94) provoked bad_action_ret into reporting
a bogus return valu
Hello.
On 04/20/2015 11:04 PM, Joe Lawrence wrote:
So -ESHUTDOWN = -108 (0xff94) provoked bad_action_ret into reporting
a bogus return value and stack trace above.
As far as I know, -Eanything is never a valid return code for an IRQ
handler. Shouldn't this always return either IRQ_NONE
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 01:35:40PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Apr 2015, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> >
> > > So -ESHUTDOWN = -108 (0xff94) provoked bad_action_ret into reporting
> > > a bogus return value and stack trace above.
> >
> > As far
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 01:35:40PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015, Joe Lawrence wrote:
>
> > So -ESHUTDOWN = -108 (0xff94) provoked bad_action_ret into reporting
> > a bogus return value and stack trace above.
>
> As far as I know, -Eanything is never a valid return code for a
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I noticed a xhci warning on Stratus fault-tolerant box running automated
> surprise device removal tests over the weekend:
>
> irq event 95: bogus return value ff94
> CPU: 0 PID: 31710 Comm: kworker/u97:2 Tainted: PF O-
