From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vlad Yasevich Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] Take care of xfrm policy when checking dst entries Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:59:22 -0400 Message-ID: <504E2A7A.9000003@gmail.com> References: <20120907.144828.97793990734588625.davem@davemloft.net> <1347283338-4249-1-git-send-email-nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com> <504DFA97.7070509@gmail.com> <20120910.131829.193126565067890591.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed 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: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:58616 "EHLO mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757197Ab2IJR70 (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:59:26 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20120910.131829.193126565067890591.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 09/10/2012 01:18 PM, David Miller wrote: > 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. > So you are perfectly ok with invalidating IPv6 cache when IPv4 table changes, but not invalidating IPv4 cache if IPv6 table changes? -vlad