From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arno@natisbad.org (Arnaud Ebalard) Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net-next-2.6 0/5] XFRM,IPv6: Removal of RH2/HAO from IPsec-protected MIPv6 traffic Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 23:33:16 +0200 Message-ID: <87r5gdtuxv.fsf@small.ssi.corp> References: <20100928.133849.112575548.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: eric.dumazet@gmail.com, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from copper.chdir.org ([88.191.97.87]:35465 "EHLO copper.chdir.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752337Ab0I1Vcc (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:32:32 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100928.133849.112575548.davem@davemloft.net> (David Miller's message of "Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:38:49 -0700 (PDT)") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, David Miller writes: > Try again, this time with ipv6 modular: > > net/built-in.o: In function `xfrm_input_addr_check': > /home/davem/src/GIT/net-next-2.6/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c:115: undefined reference to `xfrm6_input_addr_check' > > You can't put xfrm6_input_addr_check into the ipv6.o object build if you want to > call it from the generic xfrm stack which is always built statically. > > Put this and xfrm4_input_addr_check where it belongs, as an afinfo->op() Before following the (dumb) #ifdef path, I was about to do that but worried about the penalty of the additional xfrm_state_get/put_afinfo() calls on each packet I was about to add. Should I just reduce my amount of coffee or is it a valid concern? Cheers, a+