Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*FreeSWAN\'s\s+pfkey

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*FreeSWAN\'s\s+pfkey_v2\.c\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. FreeSWAN's pfkey_v2.c (score: 1): Author: _Thompson@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 22:48:06 -0400; - SMP |; /archives/netdev/2002-10/msg00291.html (8,543 bytes)
2. Re: FreeSWAN's pfkey_v2.c (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 04:50:54 +0200; ey, PF_; /archives/netdev/2002-10/msg00292.html (7,597 bytes)
3. Re: FreeSWAN's pfkey_v2.c (score: 1): Author: A." <ngall@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 23:53:47 -0300; . -Andi; /archives/netdev/2002-10/msg00293.html (8,025 bytes)
4. Re: FreeSWAN's pfkey_v2.c (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 23:58:07 -0400; Daniel; /archives/netdev/2002-10/msg00295.html (8,020 bytes)
5. FreeSWAN's pfkey_v2.c (score: 1): Author: Michael Richardson <mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 22:48:06 -0400; In our pfkey_v2.c, we had: struct proto_ops SOCKOPS_WRAPPED(pfkey_ops); ... pfkey_create() { } ... struct proto_ops SOCKOPS_WRAPPED(pfkey_ops) = { } include <linux/smp_lock.h> SOCKOPS_WRAP(pfkey, PF_; /archives/netdev/2002-10/msg00902.html (8,558 bytes)
6. Re: FreeSWAN's pfkey_v2.c (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 04:50:54 +0200; What you should actually do is to add explicit proper SMP locking. Then you don't need any SOCKOPS_WRAP hacks. -Andi; /archives/netdev/2002-10/msg00903.html (7,667 bytes)
7. Re: FreeSWAN's pfkey_v2.c (score: 1): Author: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 23:53:47 -0300; Em Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:50:54AM +0200, Andi Kleen escreveu: yup, so that eventually we can kill this hackish bandaid. - Arnaldo; /archives/netdev/2002-10/msg00904.html (8,114 bytes)
8. Re: FreeSWAN's pfkey_v2.c (score: 1): Author: Michael Richardson <mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 23:58:07 -0400; Andi> What you should actually do is to add explicit proper SMP locking. Andi> Then you don't need any SOCKOPS_WRAP hacks. Yes, that's a good idea, but it doesn't help me understand the code. ] ON H; /archives/netdev/2002-10/msg00906.html (8,061 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]