From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: Replace send_unreach with icmp_send Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:48:53 +0100 Message-ID: <42374A35.6020308@trash.net> References: <20050307103536.GB7137@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050308102741.GA23468@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050314102614.GA9610@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050314105313.GA21001@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050314111002.GA29156@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050315091904.GA6256@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050315095837.GA7130@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050315100522.GA7275@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050315102450.0f3f1618.davem@davemloft.net> <42373142.6090902@trash.net> <20050315204006.GB22349@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "David S. Miller" , kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com To: Herbert Xu In-Reply-To: <20050315204006.GB22349@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Herbert Xu wrote: > Well it isn't terribly difficult to create a new version of icmp_send > that does xrlim conditionally. icmp_send/ipt_REJECT can then call that > function. > > The main reason I'm looking at getting rid of send_unreach is because > having two implementations of the same code often leads to bugs. In > fact, as it is there are multiple IPsec-related bugs in the ipt_REJECT > code. Ok. I can't see any different reason to keep it, so go ahead. I'll take care of the xrlim stuff later. Regards Patrick