[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [4/4] [IPSEC] Store MTU at each xfrm_dst

To: James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [4/4] [IPSEC] Store MTU at each xfrm_dst
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:31:12 +1100
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Xine.LNX.4.44.0502151050080.29775-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20050214221607.GC18465@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Xine.LNX.4.44.0502151050080.29775-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 10:53:11AM -0500, James Morris wrote:
> The only thing I'd suggest is to consider renaming the new route element
> of xfrm_dst to xfrm_dst_route (or xd_route), to make it easier to navigate
> the code.  (But the other elements are not distinctive either so perhaps 
> some future cleanup could do it).

Thanks for your comment.

I would say that not only are the other elements of xfrm_dst missing
the prefixes, but the same thing applies to the rest of xfrm.h :)

So if we decide to go that way, then we should do it to the entire
xfrm subsystem.

Visit Openswan at
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Home Page:
PGP Key:

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>