| To: | Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: patch2: del/get byid |
| From: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:23:34 -0400 |
| Cc: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050428021426.GA23415@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | unknown |
| References: | <1114654284.7663.50.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050428021426.GA23415@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Thu, 2005-28-04 at 12:14 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 10:11:24PM -0400, jamal wrote: > > > > This is definetely a bug. It doesnt seem like get/del by index worked. > > For some reason i thought i tested this before and it worked. > > Why is this a bug? well, i think it is a bug that indices are being ignored by the kernel. To demonstrate: Add a rule with index 100; now try to delete or get by index. > Have you checked xfrm_gen_index? I think that should be fine to use if the kernel specifies the index. cheers, jamal |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: patch: policy update by id, Herbert Xu |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: patch2: del/get byid, Herbert Xu |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: patch2: del/get byid, Herbert Xu |
| Next by Thread: | Re: patch2: del/get byid, Herbert Xu |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |