From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: Hard freeze with 2.6.10-rc3 and QoS, worked fine with 2.6.9 Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 18:23:46 +0100 Message-ID: <41B5E722.2080600@trash.net> References: <1102380430.6103.6.camel@buffy> <20041206224441.628e7885.akpm@osdl.org> <1102422544.1088.98.camel@jzny.localdomain> <41B5E188.5050800@trash.net> <20041207170748.GF1371@postel.suug.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: hadi@cyberus.ca, Andrew Morton , Thomas Cataldo , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com, "David S. Miller" Return-path: To: Thomas Graf In-Reply-To: <20041207170748.GF1371@postel.suug.ch> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Thomas Graf wrote: >* Patrick McHardy <41B5E188.5050800@trash.net> 2004-12-07 17:59 > > >>That's also what I thought at first. But the problem is in >>tcf_action_copy_stats, it assumes a->priv has the same layout as >>struct tcf_act_hdr, which is not true for struct tcf_police. This >>patch rearranges struct tcf_police to match tcf_act_hdr. >> >> > >Hehe, see my post a few minutes back. I came up with nearly the same >solution ;-> The only difference to my patch is that I don't touch >tcf_police if the action code isn't compiled. > > Either one is fine with me, although I would prefer to see the number of ifdefs in this area going down, not up :) Regards Patrick