Hi Dave:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 09:23:25PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:46:58 +1000
> Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > # This is a BitKeeper generated diff -Nru style patch.
> > > #
> > > # ChangeSet
> > > # 2005/03/30 06:02:45+02:00 kaber@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > # [IPSEC]: Check SPI in xfrm_state_find()
> > > #
> > > # Signed-off-by: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Looks good.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> To me too, both patches applied, thanks Patrick.
Actually I only signed off on the first patch :)
The second patch creates a dead lock since it does a nested read
lock. The solution is simply to get rid of xfrm_init_tempsel
and call the afinfo version directly.
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
BTW I'd like to start cleaning up the locking in net/xfrm.
I don't want these changes to go into 2.6.12. However, I'd
like to have them sit in mm for a while so that they get some
testing coverage.
What's the best way to do this? Could you create a tree slated
for 2.6.13?
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
p
Description: Text document
|