> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/switchdev.c > +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/switchdev.c > @@ -79,5 +79,36 @@ int mv88e6xxx_handle_miss_violation(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port, > brport, &info.info, NULL); > rtnl_unlock(); > > - return err; > + return notifier_to_errno(err); > +} This change does not look obviously correct to me. What has a miss violation got to do with member violation? Is the existing code wrong? What about the case when mv88e6xxx_find_vid() returns an error? Andrew
