From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH][XFRM] SAD info TLV aggregation Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 15:15:59 +0200 Message-ID: <4639E08F.5030101@trash.net> References: <1178144288.4078.5.camel@localhost> <4639298E.8090100@trash.net> <1178197316.4077.4.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 To: hadi@cyberus.ca Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:62356 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161927AbXECNRc (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 May 2007 09:17:32 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1178197316.4077.4.camel@localhost> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org jamal wrote: > On Thu, 2007-03-05 at 02:15 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > >>I think using attributes here > > > "here" as in SAD or SPD as well? Both. >> wasn't a bad idea since this exports >>things that are implementation details and might need to be changed >>or extended at some point. > > > I think it may be reasonable to group the Hash info in one TLV > and the IPSEC specific info in a separate TLV - is this what you are > saying? Be explicit so i dont have to redo the patch over and over. Yes, thats what I imagined too. > The other way to look at it is in the future, a new TLV could be added > that replaces the current one. It would still make sense to seperate hash related things from the SA count in my opinion. >>In any case consistent naming here would be nice (SAD_ vs. SADXXX). > > > yes, i need to make this change on the SPD as well. Dave hold onto both > patches - i will resend. Thanks.