From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamal Subject: Re: patch: policy update by id Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:20:32 -0400 Message-ID: <1114654832.7663.56.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1114602874.7670.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1114604657.7670.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1114604826.7670.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050427233924.GA22238@gondor.apana.org.au> <1114650816.7663.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050428012135.GA22950@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050428013014.GA23043@gondor.apana.org.au> <1114653140.7663.36.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050428020754.GA23326@gondor.apana.org.au> Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com, "David S. Miller" Return-path: To: Herbert Xu In-Reply-To: <20050428020754.GA23326@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2005-28-04 at 12:07 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > You know what, I actually agree with you :) But you'll need to convince > Dave: > > http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/net/0305.3/0018.html > > However, this doesn't change the fact that you may need to delete > two policies. > It certainly may be simpler to just allow no more than selector. It reduces the value of priorities to be resolving ambiguities between matches perhaps with overlapping areas by prefix lengths. > > 2) index really oughta be unique across the SPD. > > Current behavior: I can add several new rules with the same index. > > Not really. The kernel ignores the index supplied when you're > adding them. > Whats the point of index then? cheers, jamal