On Fri, 2024-11-08 at 14:49 +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > --- 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, > > &http://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=20988&d=jZeu528qsdfVmICHdkZAoueog > > WLEwsN_Wa_RILla0Q&u=http%3a%2f%2finfo%2einfo 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
Hi Andrew, I forgot to remove this when preparing the patches, this was intended to be a separate bug fix. If mv88e6xxx_find_vid() returns an error it will return early, so the notifier_to_errno() conversion will only happen after call_switchdev_notifiers().
