Re: Fwd: [Bug 4774] e1000 driver works on UP, but not SMP x86_64

David Lang
2005-06-24T22:18:34Z

here's what happens.

happy1-p:~# ifconfig eth11 192.168.255.1
SIOCSIFFLAGS: Invalid argument
happy1-p:~# tail -3 /var/log/messages
Jun 24 15:14:01 happy1-p /USR/SBIN/CRON[392]: (root) CMD (touch
/tmp/.crond_running >/dev/null 2>/dev/null)
Jun 24 15:14:22 happy1-p kernel: request_irq: IRQ requested is greater
than NR_IRQs!
Jun 24 15:14:22 happy1-p kernel: e1000: eth11: e1000_up: Unable to
allocate interrupt Error: -22

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:

> Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 01:57:13 +0400
> From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
> To: David Lang <david.lang@digitalinsight.com>
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Fwd: [Bug 4774] e1000 driver works on UP, but not SMP x86_64
>
> 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.
>