From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263346AbVFXVxu (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:53:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263345AbVFXVxn (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:53:43 -0400 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.206]:21846 "EHLO wproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263346AbVFXVvQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:51:16 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:from:subject:date:user-agent:to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=ie5owyeoaNbSJuMss6SqXGg5OB0VI9rza6c66fF3QXiQfrhrqNQkSjC7L+Ns9aPypWFZfBHg/BbhyIS8lVJqhvHqSCtHa3Dk/0edii4nNC1sJN5TNGD95BvvlZl8gmpiCCaKs1pX2EA0GL4GS2LoQThOBKwLhwEf+NgvvIyZ814= From: Alexey Dobriyan Subject: Fwd: [Bug 4774] e1000 driver works on UP, but not SMP x86_64 Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 01:57:13 +0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 To: David Lang Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200506250157.14499.adobriyan@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org David, please try this debugging patch. You can also register at http://bugme.osdl.org/createaccount.cgi and add yourself to CC list. ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: [Bug 4774] e1000 driver works on UP, but not SMP x86_64 Date: Saturday 25 June 2005 01:27 From: bugme-daemon@kernel-bugs.osdl.org To: adobriyan@gmail.com http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4774 ------- Additional Comments From nacc@us.ibm.com 2005-06-24 14:27 ------- Created an attachment (id=5211) --> (http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=5211&action=view) Debugging patch That e1000 error message indicates an EINVAL error code, which is from this code: if ((irqflags & SA_SHIRQ) && !dev_id) return -EINVAL; if (irq >= NR_IRQS) return -EINVAL; if (!handler) return -EINVAL; I don't think it's the last one, because e1000_intr (which is sent in to request_irq() from e1000) is prototyped/defined. I spun up a patch to spit out some debugging here which simply inserts some printks (if the only driver which gets this warning is e1000, then it shouldn't flood your logs) -- basically narrowing down which error condition is causing the failure. I'm guessing it's probably the first case, but let's be sure.