From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] Take care of xfrm policy when checking dst entries Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:18:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20120910.131829.193126565067890591.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20120907.144828.97793990734588625.davem@davemloft.net> <1347283338-4249-1-git-send-email-nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com> <504DFA97.7070509@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, sri@us.ibm.com, linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: vyasevich@gmail.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:59467 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753676Ab2IJRSj (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:18:39 -0400 In-Reply-To: <504DFA97.7070509@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Vlad Yasevich Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:35:03 -0400 > I am not sure this is right... This has a side-effect that when an > rt_cache_flush() is called, it invalidates IPv6 routes a well.... > > Its all fine and good do this when a new policy is added, but not when > IPv4 routing table changes. I disagree.