From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH] e1000e: fix warn_on reload after phy_id error Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 03:31:10 -0500 Message-ID: <491942CE.4010604@garzik.org> References: <20081108002739.17508.60954.stgit@gitlost.lost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net To: Jeff Kirsher Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:36956 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753334AbYKKIbN (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Nov 2008 03:31:13 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20081108002739.17508.60954.stgit@gitlost.lost> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jeff Kirsher wrote: > If the driver fails to initialize the first time due to the failure in the > phy_id check the kernel triggers a warn_on on the second try to load the > driver because the driver did not free the msi/x resources in the first > load because of the previous failure in phy_id check. Is that all one sentence? Can I buy a comma or semi-colon, Pat? :) More seriously, this description is not very helpful. A good description precisely outlines the _solution_ ("fix msi/x resource leak"), perhaps with a bit of concise problem description ("failure to free msi/x resources"). Your description focuses mostly on what the user/tester experiences and observes, whereas in a changeset description the most important thing to communicate is to describe the engineering change to the driver (proper release of resources). Jeff