On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 15:24 +0100, Bjørn Mork wrote: > Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 23:27 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > [...] > >> --- a/net/core/skbuff.c > >> +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c > >> @@ -554,14 +554,21 @@ static void kfree_skbmem(struct sk_buff *skb) > >> > >> static void skb_release_head_state(struct sk_buff *skb) > >> { > >> + WARN_ONCE(in_irq() && !skb_irq_freeable(skb), > >> + "%s called from irq! sp %d nfct %d frag_list %d %pF dst %lx", > >> + __func__, > >> + IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_XFRM) ? !!skb->sp : 0, > >> + IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK) ? !!skb->nfct : 0, > > [...] > > > > This is a syntax error if CONFIG_XFRM or CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK is > > disabled; you have to use #ifdef's. > > Are you sure? I thought one of the ideas behind these macros was that > they would always evaluate to 0 or 1. The docs says: > > * IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FOO) evaluates to 1 if CONFIG_FOO is set to 'y' or 'm', > * 0 otherwise. > > > See include/linux/kconfig.h for the macro magic making this > happen. Looks like fun figuring that out. It has nothing to do with this. Try following code, and you'll get a compilation error. unsigned int can_this_fly(struct sk_buff *skb) { return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NOWAY_SIR) ? skb->unknown_field : 0; } -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html