From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: jamal <hadi@cyberus.ca>
Subject: Re: [5/*] [IPSEC] Use XFRM_MSG_* instead of XFRM_SAP_*
Date: 12 Apr 2005 09:37:03 -0400
Message-ID: <1113313023.1966.79.camel@jzny.localdomain>
References: <1112702604.1089.119.camel@jzny.localdomain>
	 <20050409105452.GA7171@gondor.apana.org.au>
	 <20050409111244.GB7171@gondor.apana.org.au>
	 <20050409111551.GA7378@gondor.apana.org.au>
	 <20050410074849.GA13259@gondor.apana.org.au>
	 <20050410090250.GA26022@gondor.apana.org.au>
	 <1113142510.1091.294.camel@jzny.localdomain>
	 <425A0F00.8070509@linux-ipv6.org>
	 <1113218805.1089.357.camel@jzny.localdomain>
	 <425B8401.1010609@linux-ipv6.org>
Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>, netdev <netdev@oss.sgi.com>
Return-path: <netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com>
To: Masahide NAKAMURA <nakam@linux-ipv6.org>
In-Reply-To: <425B8401.1010609@linux-ipv6.org>
Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 04:17, Masahide NAKAMURA wrote:

> short report:
> My testing is not completed but, I've tested below and it is fine:
>  add/del/flush SP and their notifications through netlink (using modified iproute2/ip).
> 
>  new "xfrm_userpolicy_delete" works fine on this case;
>  used byid=1 when deleting SP with specifying SP index.
> 
> I'll test the rest case (17 hours later):
> - using pfkey
> - using both sockets
> 

I did basic testing with pfkey generated events (policy/state) showing
up in both. The vice-versa also looks good.
Herbert, try to push forward to Dave.

cheers,
jamal