From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] pci: add misrouted interrupt error handling Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 10:20:01 -0700 Message-ID: <20080807172001.GA9773@kroah.com> References: <1217786532.4179.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200808051415.59993.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> <1217973297.9923.80.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200808070903.23787.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200808070903.23787.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jesse Barnes Cc: James Bottomley , linux-scsi , linux-kernel , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 09:03:22AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Tuesday, August 5, 2008 2:54 pm James Bottomley wrote: > > > or somesuch. That seems just as simple for driver writers as your > > > initial patch, and the function is named in accordance with what it > > > actually does, rather than what it's used for... > > > > It could, but if the bridge is the culprit (as it usually is for MSI > > problems), this print won't help identify it. > > > > Therefore, rather than give driver writers a recipe for "print this and > > this and go to the bridge and print this", I'd rather have a single PCI > > callback that prints all the (hopefully) relevant information that will > > allow either fixing or blacklisting. > > So in addition to the IRQ type check we need to dump some device topology > information... yeah that makes sense. I wonder if the driver core should > provide something like this. Greg? What kind of topology do you need that is not already provided? thanks, greg k-h