[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <464B6238.70102@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 12:57:44 -0700
From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Auke Kok <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] e1000: Fix msi enable leak on error, don't print error
message, cleanup
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Rick Jones wrote:
>
>> But that is rather incidental isn't it? Would some sort of system
>> health monitor be likely to be checking that for interrupt flavors? And
>
>
> Well, that's where the information is exported in a standard way. I
> hope you're not suggesting that a system health monitor should be
> parsing random, driver-specific printk messages to obtain the same
> information?
No, I wouldn't. The only "system health monitor" I would expect to be parsing
that sort of thing would be a human. Perhaps I'm just backing-into the meta
question via the specifics of this driver patch.
>> just looking at /proc/interrupts, while it tells you what sort of
>> interrupt is being used, it doesn't (IIRC) say anything about what
>> sort of interrupt the driver _tried_ to use.
>
>
> True.
>
> In the context of this thread, it could be any number of reasons: MSI
> isn't compiled in. MSI was disabled at runtime via kernel command line.
> MSI was disabled by BIOS quirk. MSI enable was attempted, but failed
> for some reason.
>
> None of those reasons are really driver-specific, or need
> driver-specific complaint messages.
Agreed. But is the PCI (?) subsystem doing something in that regard or is this
a hole?
rick jones
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists