Re: PATCH: IPSEC xfrm events

[jamal <hadi@cyberus.ca>]

On Fri, 2005-04-01 at 07:35, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 07:24:38AM -0500, jamal wrote:
> > 
> > I think either scheme is fine really;-> I will definetely go back and
> > consider the approach you are suggesting and see if it results into
> > more maintanable code - then fair. Otherwise you realize its more work
> > for me ;->
> 
> Well I'm happy to code that part if you want :)
>  

Let me review first. If it is valuable (we may have to leave expire
alone). If i can get it done within next day or two fine - else if i get
busyed out elsewhere i will hand it to you. Actually if you have plenty
cycles and are very enthusiastic about this i can hand it to you right
now ;-> Masahide and myself have some momentum going right now but i
dont think this will be that disruptive.

> You're right that the RFC isn't very clear.
> 
> Let's forget about the RFC and simply consider the usefulness of this.
> I contend that it is useful to see a FLUSH notification even when
> it flushed nothing.
> 
> The reason is that this is an indication to all listeners that the
> database is completely empty.
> 

Ok, let me hear from Masahide-san: If he still holds the same opinion as
you then i will make the change.


> > Thats a bug really which is being exposed now. So it has nothing to do
> > with the approach taken ;-> 
> 
> You're right that it is a bug.  However, this bug would've never triggered
> before because we simply didn't have delete policy notifications :)
> 

indeed.

> > No expire should be sent if the policy has transitioned to dead. The bug
> > is trivial to fix - and actually should be fixed regardless of this
> > patch.
> 
> Yes the same fix to __xfrm_state_delete can be applied to
> xfrm_policy_delete.
> 

agreed.

cheers,
jamal