From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: add a missing include in nf_conntrack_reasm.c Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 20:57:23 +0100 Message-ID: <1295553443.2613.3.camel@edumazet-laptop> References: <1295545997.2825.458.camel@edumazet-laptop> <4D388A83.5020501@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Netfilter Development Mailinglist , netdev , KOVACS Krisztian To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4D388A83.5020501@trash.net> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Le jeudi 20 janvier 2011 =C3=A0 20:18 +0100, Patrick McHardy a =C3=A9cr= it : > Am 20.01.2011 18:53, schrieb Eric Dumazet: > > After commit ae90bdeaeac6b (netfilter: fix compilation when conntra= ck is > > disabled but tproxy is enabled) we have following warnings : > >=20 > > net/ipv6/netfilter/nf_conntrack_reasm.c:520:16: warning: symbol > > 'nf_ct_frag6_gather' was not declared. Should it be static? > > net/ipv6/netfilter/nf_conntrack_reasm.c:591:6: warning: symbol > > 'nf_ct_frag6_output' was not declared. Should it be static? > > net/ipv6/netfilter/nf_conntrack_reasm.c:612:5: warning: symbol > > 'nf_ct_frag6_init' was not declared. Should it be static? > > net/ipv6/netfilter/nf_conntrack_reasm.c:640:6: warning: symbol > > 'nf_ct_frag6_cleanup' was not declared. Should it be static? > >=20 > > Fix this including net/netfilter/ipv6/nf_defrag_ipv6.h > >=20 >=20 > I currently don't have access to all my trees, does this patch > apply to 2.6.38 or just the current -rc? I dont really understand the question. Or do you mean 2.6.37 versus 2.6.38-rc1 ? It's a minor correction anyway, not a stable candidate. It would be goo= d to push it for current (2.6.38) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-dev= el" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html