| To: | Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [2/4] [IPSEC] Kill spurious hard expire messages |
| From: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | 10 Apr 2005 10:10:44 -0400 |
| Cc: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Masahide NAKAMURA <nakam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>, netdev <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20050409200306.GA9660@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | jamalopolous |
| References: | <1112702604.1089.119.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050409105452.GA7171@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050409111244.GB7171@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1113049844.1090.23.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050409192926.GA9423@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050409200306.GA9660@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Sat, 2005-04-09 at 16:03, Herbert Xu wrote: > xfrm_policy_kill can only be called by the one who removed the > policy from the linked list. Therefore it can never fail. > > If this logic is wrong we will be getting fat warnings from > xfrm_policy_kill. > The warning will kick in but it may be as rare as the issue of a delete and expire happening on the same policy that your patch was supposed to stop ;-> cheers, jamal |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Fwd: Re: connector is missing in 2.6.12-rc2-mm1], Evgeniy Polyakov |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [5/*] [IPSEC] Use XFRM_MSG_* instead of XFRM_SAP_*, jamal |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [2/4] [IPSEC] Kill spurious hard expire messages, Herbert Xu |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [2/4] [IPSEC] Kill spurious hard expire messages, Herbert Xu |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |