I dont think we reached any agreement last time, Herbert - so here is a A rule is unique by both selector(which it was already and this patch doesnt change) and index which could be user specified(ne
This is still racy since delp can be killed by timers before you get the lock. Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Pa
Ok, Herbert - this is fixable: I take it moving the lock one up is sufficient; i dont mind if you fix it and add it to your list. BTW, are the event patches in Davems queue somewhere? I have a few ip
I know it's fixable, but the problem is that the fix is likely to make this function even uglier :) What I still don't get is who would be using this feature. No I don't mean an example of how the ip
I am giving you the opportunity now to fix it your way;-> Rewrite if you want. I promise not to hassle you ;-> Oh, wait, ip doesnt count as an app?;-> Now, lets say it doesnt. The incosistency i see
Ah, that's why we're talking past each other :) You're looking at it as a bug where we aren't setting the index when it is provided by the user. The way I'm seeing it is that the index is simply a re
It is a bug based on what common usage of what indices are used for in tables. They are search keys. IOW, they are search keys. Search keys are unique and read-write. You cant just invent you rules H
I'm afraid I still disagree. There should only be one key that the user gets to set when adding policies that is guaranteed to be unique. As it is it's the selector. Letting the user specify two inde
I can queue them up for you and bounce them to Dave once 2.6.13 opens up. Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page: h
You are a reasonable man, so i am hoping you will end agreeing or agreeing to disagree;-> Note: The index was already guaranteed to be unique even without my patch. Just to make sure we are not speak
Dave, would you mind if I pushed these event patches into mm for some testing? Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Pa
If it weren't for the fact that the only way of achieving what you want here is through ugly code then I wouldn't have any problems with it at all. The difference is that the uniqueness is easy when
Rewrite it Herbert ;-> I have no qualms as long as the feature is available. I even promised not to harass you ;-> But the uniqueness is still maintained. Nothing changes there. As i said in the last
Sorry, I can't think of any good ways to implement what you want. The difference is that we now have to guarantee the uniqueness of two unrelated fields during insertion: the index as well as the sel
There is really nothing in my (small) patch that you have pointed out that is unresolvable;-> You just dont like the idea, period. Both the index and the selector MUST be unique, no question about th