From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Masahide NAKAMURA Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/23] [PATCH] [XFRM]: Add XFRM_MODE_xxx for future use. Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 10:34:44 +0900 Message-ID: <44D00134.90006@linux-ipv6.org> References: <11541653852481-git-send-email-nakam@linux-ipv6.org> <20060801.165232.95060501.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, anttit@tcs.hut.fi, vnuorval@tcs.hut.fi, netdev@vger.kernel.org, usagi-core@linux-ipv6.org Return-path: Received: from [203.178.140.9] ([203.178.140.9]:56721 "EHLO mail.gomagoma.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750961AbWHBBez (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Aug 2006 21:34:55 -0400 To: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20060801.165232.95060501.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org David Miller wrote: > From: Masahide NAKAMURA > Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 18:29:45 +0900 > >> Transformation mode is used as either IPsec transport or tunnel. >> It is required to add two more items, route-optimization and inbound trigger >> by Mobile IPv6. >> Based on MIPL2 kernel patch. > > This change looks fine, but please explain the inconsistent > transformation done in xfrm4_encap() vs. xfrm6_encap(). > [snip] > Unless there is a reason to do things differently, we should make the > checks identical even if ipv4 will never use values other than > XFRM_MODE_TUNNEL and XFRM_MODE_TRANSPORT. Oops, I'm sorry, both should be the same. My fix wants to change it as xfrm6_encap case, then I'll fix xfrm4_encap. And I will check all patches with that point. Thanks, -- Masahide NAKAMURA