From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamal Subject: Re: [PATCH][XFRM] Optimize policy dumping Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 09:11:09 -0500 Message-ID: <1165241469.3664.81.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> <45742B6D.7010509@trash.net> 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 wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.230]:10710 "EHLO wx-out-0506.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S936854AbWLDOLP (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Dec 2006 09:11:15 -0500 Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id h27so3803513wxd for ; Mon, 04 Dec 2006 06:11:12 -0800 (PST) To: Patrick McHardy In-Reply-To: <45742B6D.7010509@trash.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2006-04-12 at 15:06 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: > Both ways are fine I guess. But the counting has almost no > overhead with the patch I sent, so I'm not sure if its worth > adding a callback (which still needs to get the last policy/SA > as argument, so that part won't get any nicer). > > BTW, I'm not sure whether there are further requirements than > those you quoted, but according to that text, using 1 for > all but the last message would be fine as well :) > The only arguement for the callback is it will lead to eventually having some semi-reliable dump for pfkey. But i think that is a separate issue to be tackled later. I am actually scratching my head a little as to what happens when the pfkey socket recv is full. cheers, jamal