| To: | Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [2/4] [IPSEC] Kill spurious hard expire messages |
| From: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | 11 Apr 2005 07:57:29 -0400 |
| Cc: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Masahide NAKAMURA <nakam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>, netdev <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20050411113040.GA25718@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | jamalopolous |
| References: | <1112702604.1089.119.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050409105452.GA7171@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050409111244.GB7171@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1113049844.1090.23.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050409192926.GA9423@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050409200306.GA9660@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1113142244.1088.287.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050410212707.GA30337@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1113218420.1090.351.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050411113040.GA25718@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Herbert, On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 07:30, Herbert Xu wrote: > Hi Jamal: > Therefore knowing that xfrm_policy_delete returned 0 implies that > no user-initiated delete action can succeed either before or after > the expire event. > Ok, what you are saying is sensible, but: does this mean there was never an issue then there was never a possibility of delete and expire intefering with each other then? cheers, jamal |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [2/4] [IPSEC] Kill spurious hard expire messages, Herbert Xu |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [2/4] [IPSEC] Kill spurious hard expire messages, Herbert Xu |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [2/4] [IPSEC] Kill spurious hard expire messages, Herbert Xu |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [2/4] [IPSEC] Kill spurious hard expire messages, Herbert Xu |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |