| To: | David Dillow <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC 2.6.10 4/22] xfrm: Try to offload inbound xfrm_states |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:56:08 -0800 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20041230035000.13@ori.thedillows.org> |
| References: | <20041230035000.12@ori.thedillows.org> <20041230035000.13@ori.thedillows.org> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 03:48:35 -0500 David Dillow <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > # This is a BitKeeper generated diff -Nru style patch. > # > # ChangeSet > # 2004/12/30 00:33:11-05:00 dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > # Plumb in offloading of inbound xfrm_states. > # > # Signed-off-by: David Dillow <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Hmmm, this seems to deadlock. xfrm_state_add() is invoked with the RTNL semaphore already acquired. For example, via xfrm_user.c:xfrm_add_sa() |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 7/12] [X25] stop using sk_protinfo, Aristeu Rozanski |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: on the wire behaviour of TSO on/off is supposed to be the same yes?, Rick Jones |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC 2.6.10 3/22] xfrm: Add offload management routines, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC 2.6.10 4/22] xfrm: Try to offload inbound xfrm_states, David Dillow |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |