From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Morris Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH][XFRM][4/5] extension to XFRM for dynamic endpoint update (MIGRATE) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 09:50:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: References: <20070201114558.E2C3.SHINTA@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Francis Dupont , Masahide Nakamura , usagi-core@linux-ipv6.org To: Shinta Sugimoto Return-path: Received: from mail6.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.117.8]:52514 "EHLO mail6.sea5.speakeasy.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422911AbXBAOuD (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Feb 2007 09:50:03 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20070201114558.E2C3.SHINTA@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Shinta Sugimoto wrote: > + /* allow IPSEC_PROTO_ANY to match all protocols */ > + //sel.proto = pfkey_proto_to_xfrm(sa->sadb_address_proto); > + sel.proto = sa->sadb_address_proto; Which one is correct ? :-) > + /* allow IPSEC_PROTO_ANY to match all protocols */ > + //sel.proto = pfkey_proto_to_xfrm(sa->sadb_address_proto); > + sel.proto = sa->sadb_address_proto; ... - James -- James Morris