On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 08:22:40AM -0800, Shannon Nelson wrote: > On 12/20/2017 8:03 AM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 03:35:49PM -0800, Shannon Nelson wrote: > > > There's no reason to define netdev->xfrmdev_ops if > > > the offload facility is not CONFIG'd in. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Shannon Nelson <shannon.nel...@oracle.com> > > > > This one could use a Fixes tag perhaps: > > Fixes: d77e38e612a0 ("xfrm: Add an IPsec hardware offloading API") > > > > as in theory the build was broken since then, as it added: > > +#ifdef CONFIG_XFRM_OFFLOAD > > +struct xfrmdev_ops { > > ... > > +#ifdef CONFIG_XFRM > > + const struct xfrmdev_ops *xfrmdev_ops; > > > > So the pointer would have an undefined type > > if CONFIG_XFRM && !CONFIG_XFRM_OFFLOAD > > Though I couldn't reproduce this, not sure why. > > Hmmm, I don't think this requires a "Fixes" tag, as the code all worked just > fine, I'm just doing a little cleaning.
I still don't get how it works, but okay. > > Patch 2/3 adds a more intense look at the data structure, so I needed to > change it to the CONFIG_XFRM_OFFLOAD so as to not break the build. Since the > xfrmdev_ops field is now never used unless we have CONFIG_XFRM_OFFLOAD, we > can change the net_device definition to be just a bit smaller without it. > > > > > But.. is it buildable with this patch? I mine failed: > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_XFRM) := xfrm_policy.o xfrm_state.o xfrm_hash.o \ > > xfrm_input.o xfrm_output.o \ > > xfrm_sysctl.o xfrm_replay.o xfrm_device.o > > > > so xfrm_device is always in if CONFIG_XFRM is there, > > xfrm_dev_init(), via xfrm_dev_notifier -> xfrm_dev_event() -> > > xfrm_dev_register() and then: > > > > static int xfrm_dev_register(struct net_device *dev) > > { > > if ((dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP) && !dev->xfrmdev_ops) > > This looks like you haven't applied version 3 of the 2nd patch "xfrm: check > for xdo_dev_ops add and delete". I missed this in the earlier version (not > enough compile tests), but version 3 of patch 2/3 should address it. Right you are, missed it here. Thanks, Marcelo