| To: | Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: RFC: IPSEC patch 0 for netlink events |
| From: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | 26 Mar 2005 15:11:15 -0500 |
| Cc: | Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>, Masahide NAKAMURA <nakam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20050326194707.GA9872@gondor.apana.org.au> |
| Organization: | jamalopolous |
| References: | <1111864971.1092.904.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20050326194707.GA9872@gondor.apana.org.au> |
| Reply-to: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 14:47, Herbert Xu wrote: > Since we're adding new multicast groups, what about adding one for > the passive event monitor? That way we can return ESRCH in km_query > if there are no registered ACQUIRE listeners but still send messages > to the monitor. > Not sure how to do it for both PF_KEY and netlink. It does sound like a reasonable thing to do. Thoughts? cheers, jamal |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: PATCH: IPSEC acquire in presence of multiple managers, jamal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Resend: Re: PATCH: IPSEC acquire in presence of multiple managers, jamal |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: RFC: IPSEC patch 0 for netlink events, Herbert Xu |
| Next by Thread: | Re: RFC: IPSEC patch 0 for netlink events, Herbert Xu |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |