I have a fix for this already, if Dan doesn't mind. Todd Fujinaka Software Application Engineer Networking Division (ND) Intel Corporation todd.fujinaka@xxxxxxxxx (503) 712-4565 -----Original Message----- From: Wyborny, Carolyn Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 11:07 AM To: Fujinaka, Todd; Kirsher, Jeffrey T; Dan Carpenter Cc: e1000-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kernel-janitors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Allan, Bruce W; Brandeburg, Jesse; Linux NICS; Ronciak, John Subject: RE: [E1000-devel] [patch] igb: cleanup igb_enable_mas() a bit [..] > I'm looking into this and while the code fix is correct, I'm not sure > the underlying code is correct. > > Unfortunately, the person who knows the most about this is out for > spring break. Can we hold off on this patch? Yes, the intended fix is good. In addition though, I think igb_enable_mas() should be changed to void and the call to it also modified, since there's no way to fail the enable. A previous implementation had a way to fail, but the current does not. Thanks, Carolyn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
