From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for December 29 (cxgb3i) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:51:07 -0600 Message-ID: <1230587467.3302.67.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20081230031621.60acd90b.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20081229123517.23fd6169.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from accolon.hansenpartnership.com ([76.243.235.52]:59334 "EHLO accolon.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753196AbYL2VvL (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:51:11 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20081229123517.23fd6169.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Randy Dunlap Cc: Stephen Rothwell , scsi , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML , kxie@chelsio.com On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 12:35 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 03:16:21 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20081219: > > > > Undropped tree: > > scci > > mtd > > > > Dropped trees (temporarily): > > nfs (akpm request due to 2.6.30 features) > > kvm (build problem) > > rr (build poblem) > > semaphore-removal (due to unfixed conflicts against Linus' tree) > > cpu_alloc (build problem) > > audit (difficult conflicts) > > > > Linus' tree had three build failures requiring patches and one requiring > > a revert. > > > linux-next-20081229/drivers/scsi/cxgb3i/cxgb3i_offload.c:499: error: 'struct sk_buff' has no member named 'sp' > linux-next-20081229/drivers/scsi/cxgb3i/cxgb3i_offload.c:512: error: 'struct sk_buff' has no member named 'sp' > linux-next-20081229/drivers/scsi/cxgb3i/cxgb3i_offload.c:532: error: 'struct sk_buff' has no member named 'sp' > linux-next-20081229/drivers/scsi/cxgb3i/cxgb3i_offload.c:533: error: 'struct sk_buff' has no member named 'sp' In the config 20 questions, my guess for this is CONFIG_XFRM=n I'm not at all sure why this driver is playing with the secure path ... I suspect the use needs to be enclosed in #ifdef CONFIG_XFRM pairs, but I'd like the maintainers to verify. James