| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [Openswan Users] Invalid argument NULL |
| From: | Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 17 Aug 2004 10:41:41 +1000 |
| Cc: | jiva@xxxxxxxxxxx, users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20040815195313.31bacf13.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <BD428BAA.4BBE%jiva@xxxxxxxxxxx> <E1BwINn-0000ZX-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040815112548.GA2864@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040815195313.31bacf13.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.6+20040523i |
On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 07:53:13PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > > I've applied this for now. There is a lot of duplication around > the xfrm structures of this kind of information. Yes we've got the numbers in x->props and the names in the x->*algo structure. The question is do we go with the numbers of the names? On the face of it the names look like a good idea. However, we can't do sets of names as easily as we can do sets of numbers (the *algos mask in xfrm_tmpl). Further more, for the actual IKE negotiation, numbers are required anyway. So maybe we should keep the numbers? 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 2.4]: Remove unnecessary memset in packet schedulers, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Openswan Users] Invalid argument NULL, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Openswan Users] Invalid argument NULL, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Openswan Users] Invalid argument NULL, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |