From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] [RTNETLINK] Fix RTM_MAX to represent the maximum valid message type
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 01:02:17 +0200
Message-ID: <20050503230217.GR577@postel.suug.ch>
References: <20050430195058.GC577@postel.suug.ch> <20050503142740.345925ea.davem@davemloft.net> <20050503222003.GQ577@postel.suug.ch> <20050503152704.4c6744d6.davem@davemloft.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com
Return-path: <netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20050503152704.4c6744d6.davem@davemloft.net>
Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

* David S. Miller <20050503152704.4c6744d6.davem@davemloft.net> 2005-05-03 15:27
> On Wed, 4 May 2005 00:20:03 +0200
> Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch> wrote:
> 
> > * David S. Miller <20050503142740.345925ea.davem@davemloft.net> 2005-05-03 14:27
> > > Excellent observation.  The fact that we encode the "modifies state"
> > > in the low bits of the RTM_* numbers has always been a source of
> > > obscure bugs and hard to track down errors.
> > > 
> > > Patch applied, thanks.
> > 
> > Do you want 2.4 backports for all patches or just the xfrm
> > off-by-one fix?
> 
> Congratulations if you can find xfrm in the vanilla
> 2.4.x tree :-)

Heh, ok ok ;-> I think none of the patches need to be backported
then, although the type > RTM_MAX has an off-by-one issue the
current RTM_MAX is set to one below the start of the next block
so the behaviour matches the 2.6 tree.