From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH][XFRM] Optimize policy dumping Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:59:31 +0100 Message-ID: <45746203.2030400@trash.net> 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> <1165241100.3664.75.camel@localhost> <1165246635.3643.6.camel@localhost> <457444E0.8060801@trash.net> <1165254213.3643.25.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:50254 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932068AbWLDR4X (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Dec 2006 12:56:23 -0500 To: hadi@cyberus.ca In-Reply-To: <1165254213.3643.25.camel@localhost> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org jamal wrote: > Ok, both looked good except for the test of a single entry. > This was because you would break out of the loop with count of 0. > The patch against yours would look like something attached for the state > case. Dont forget there are two spots on the policy side of things;-> You're right, that case was also broken. With your patch on top it looks all right. > You can either submit both patches or i could later today. If you do, > please look at some of the comments i made in the first patch and > include them. I'd prefer if you did it since you're already testing the thing :)