Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756116Ab0DHIkX (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Apr 2010 04:40:23 -0400 Received: from mail-ew0-f222.google.com ([209.85.219.222]:50159 "EHLO mail-ew0-f222.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751410Ab0DHIkS (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Apr 2010 04:40:18 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=p7/TiysNMm+p3MqqZfqfbDpuUKdvJO0SYA8KSHLUp9Cuf47O4Qg5N7rKVFUwA5xp2w llxyk8/TbkCeIgsm6DTUfoJwW7Oe++OxucGGT9fXtlkRC/+89kycb6MTuvHKX0Dilzcd 02HKgJD/xsVyvdiE44Wv4w2PfSUzuG3Hf//AY= Message-ID: <4BBD966D.8020404@iki.fi> Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 11:40:13 +0300 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Timo_Ter=E4s?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100317) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Rothwell CC: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML Subject: Re: linux-next: powerpc boot failure References: <20100408165848.38f75f40.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <4BBD81B3.3030500@iki.fi> <20100408172316.e6ee451d.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <4BBD85ED.4090209@iki.fi> <20100408174549.2f45ceea.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: <20100408174549.2f45ceea.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1671 Lines: 49 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 10:29:49 +0300 Timo Ter?s 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-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/