Stephen Rothwell wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 10:29:49 +0300 Timo Teräs <timo.teras@iki.fi> 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 *);
 
--
unsubscribe notice
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/