netdev - Re: igbvf: add new driver to support 82576 virtual functions

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20090325.143404.244585946.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:34:04 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	alexander.h.duyck@...el.com
Cc:	yu.zhao@...el.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com,
	willy@...ux.intel.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: igbvf: add new driver to support 82576 virtual functions

From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:10:48 -0700

> The problem isn't the SR-IOV patches it is a difference in
> architectures.  The x86/x86_64 architecture lets you be a bit more
> sloppy when it comes to including vmalloc.  I've seen it in the past
> with igb, and I suspect that is why we didn't catch this in testing.
> We just need to add a #include of vmalloc.h in ethtool.c and the
> issue should be fixed.

Yes, that was the problem.

I thought it was dead obvious from the build failure message.
What else could a lack of visible vmalloc() declaration mean? :-/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html