Stephen Rothwell wrote:
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 10:29:49 +0300 Timo Teräs <timo.teras@xxxxxx> wrote:
You don't probably have any xfrm policies then. And that code should not
really get executed.
Some of the changes touch globally visible structs, and inline functions.
Was this a clean rebuild? And did you update all kernel modules, also in
the initramfs?
Yes, the build is started from scratch and the kernel and modules are
updated (this is our automated build and test system).
I have attached the config in case that is of use.
It looks like my new code uses xfrm_pols_put assuming it always does the
proper thing. But seems like it's doing funny stuff if CONFIG_XFRM_SUB_POLICY
is not set, which is your case.
Can you try if this helps?
diff --git a/include/net/xfrm.h b/include/net/xfrm.h
index 625dd61..cccb049 100644
--- a/include/net/xfrm.h
+++ b/include/net/xfrm.h
@@ -735,19 +735,12 @@ static inline void xfrm_pol_put(struct xfrm_policy *policy
xfrm_policy_destroy(policy);
}
-#ifdef CONFIG_XFRM_SUB_POLICY
static inline void xfrm_pols_put(struct xfrm_policy **pols, int npols)
{
int i;
for (i = npols - 1; i >= 0; --i)
xfrm_pol_put(pols[i]);
}
-#else
-static inline void xfrm_pols_put(struct xfrm_policy **pols, int npols)
-{
- xfrm_pol_put(pols[0]);
-}
-#endif
extern void __xfrm_state_destroy(struct xfrm_state *);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html