From: Timo T. <tim...@ik...> - 2008-12-10 08:14:41
|
Arnaud Ebalard wrote: > Timo Teräs <tim...@ik...> writes: >>> ps: Timo, any comment on the xfrm_larval_drop patch? >> Could you resend it to the list? I'd hope to hear comments >> from others about the idea. The phase2 should expire >> internally too. Not sure how much it'd help to honour >> the kernel expire message. At least it would keep the >> db in sync, so I'm thinking to be in favor unless someone >> has good arguments. > > The patch is inline at the end of the message. > >> As to coding style,a I'd update the PHASE2ST_ESTABLISHED >> if clause with new constraints, update the comment, and >> finally the if clause for rekeying needs to check also >> for established state. This way we get less return-paths. > > ok. I'll take a look at that tomorrow. I need some sleep. Ok. My comment about coding style still applies. I'd hope to hear if anyone has objections to this in principal. >>> pps: I don't like the use of 'I' in the patch but that's a cosmetic issue. >> What do you mean by this? > > Just that using upper case letters for variables ('I' vs 'i') seems > unusual (to me). But that's not an issue. The only place where in the patch capital 'I' is mentioned is in a block that is being removed. So the patch is fixing that funnyness. If you do find a place where something like that is inserted, do post the line numbers/context and I'll fix it. - Timo |