| To: | Michael Richardson <mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: CONFIG_XFRM vs udp.c |
| From: | Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 4 Aug 2004 07:27:53 +1000 |
| Cc: | netdev <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <22093.1091561579@marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca> |
| References: | <22093.1091561579@marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.6+20040523i |
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 03:32:59PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: > > It is it intentional that this part of XFRM can not be a module? As it is XFRM cannot be built as a module at all. This is only one of the places in the IP stack that calls XFRM directly. Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 2.6] netem limit not returned correctly, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [IPROUTE2] purging a directory, Masahide Nakamura |
| Previous by Thread: | CONFIG_XFRM vs udp.c, Michael Richardson |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH 2.6] netem limit not returned correctly, Stephen Hemminger |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |