> --- 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
