From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamal Subject: Re: [PATCH][XFRM] Optimize policy dumping Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 09:05:00 -0500 Message-ID: <1165241100.3664.75.camel@localhost> References: <1165158707.3517.92.camel@localhost> <45741386.5070002@trash.net> <1165238776.3664.40.camel@localhost> <45742825.8040004@trash.net> <45742964.9000905@trash.net> <1165240725.3664.72.camel@localhost> Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.224]:59326 "EHLO wr-out-0506.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S936871AbWLDOFG (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Dec 2006 09:05:06 -0500 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i7so1542395wra for ; Mon, 04 Dec 2006 06:05:05 -0800 (PST) To: Patrick McHardy In-Reply-To: <1165240725.3664.72.camel@localhost> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Patrick, Your approach is much cleaner. Let me give these a few tests then I will repost later today; forget about the callback approach for now. cheers, jamal On Mon, 2006-04-12 at 08:58 -0500, jamal wrote: > On Mon, 2006-04-12 at 14:57 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > > I think the complications come from the fact that you remeber two > > policies, but only one seems necessary. How about this (completely > > untested) patch? It simply uses increasing sequence numbers for all > > but the last entry and uses zero for the last one. > > > > I could give this a try in about 2 hours. But why dont you like the > callback approach? You have to admit, this is hairy code. > > > And the same for SAs. > > > > The SA has less things to remember, so it is easier; but i will apply > this and test it and if it meets the requirements I will look into > converting the SA to the same scheme. > > cheers, > jamal >